Hi, too. Thanks for your note. Meanwhile I have noticed it myself, watching your corrections and/or new creations. Before I thought, that someome has it forgotten. Greetings --Phoe00:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Royita.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Splash - tk23:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You added an heir presumptive in May; per Michael Rhodes, however, the 6th Baron has two sons, Hon. Victor (b. 28 Jan 2004) and a one as yet unnamed (b. 19 Jun 2006). Choess17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabeticization of categories is a bad idea and is opposed by many people. For this reason it is listed on Wikipedia:Semi-bots as something which should not be done by bots. It is easy to do what I see as great harm to Wikipedia using a bot in this way, but harder to repair the damage. This means it is unsporting to use a bot in this fashion. I will be tracking your edits and will revert them if you continue with this practice. Thank you. Chicheley14:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've really you haven't actually been doing full alphabeticization, but I would urge you to edit manually in any case. Looking at the people you worked on, many of them are not in the most essential categories, eg diplomats and generals who are categorised by years of birth and death, three of four honours, and maybe an education institution or two, but not as diplomats or generals! The only way to sort the categories on an article out properly is to look at them manually. I think occupational categories should come first and the year of birth and death categories are unimportant and should go last, and I've read comments to the same effect from lots of other people. Chicheley15:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the Monckton page move I'm always a bit nervious about those so I made the articles changes and had left that to do later :) Alci1200:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad News. I'm afraid the new version of the Irish coat of arms you uploaded isn't the Irish coat of arms. It seems to be someone's attempt to make one, but is the wrong type of harp, at the wrong angle, with the wrong number of strings, wrong decoration, etc. (The version you uploaded seems to be based on a version of the harp once used on the royal standard.) The one that you replaced actually is the correct one. (If you compare the two of them closely you'll see that they are not the same.) So it looks like you'll have change back all the substitutions you made. Sorry for bringing the bad news. FearÉIREANN\(caint)17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth did you revert my corrections? William II never had a daughter names Wilhelmina, her name was Sophie and she is rather well known so it really wouldn't be hard to check that. Sascha was just an informal nickname used by Alexander's family and friends. Or should we call Prince Frederick, King William II and Queen Beatrix Fritz, Guillot and Trix in the template as well? Känsterle08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I made some additions to Count of Vasaborg, one addition being an attempt to describe theur coat-of-arms. You seem to be the resident coat-of-arms guy. My descriptive abilitues are not perfect, as I do not know all that terminology. Vasaborg arms was the same as that of the dynasty of Vasa, but a diagonal something (line? balk? spar? what is that thing showing bastardry?) going through. The picture of Vasa dynasty's arms you surely find somehwere - it depicts a tied bunch of wheat or something, harvested in late summers from fields. Could you try (1) to get the actual picture of Vasaborg arms to add as picture and (2) to apply heraldry terminology to the description I tried to write there. ObRoy20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous recipients of these two awards who are not listed in Category .... I wish I knew how to use a robot and suspect you do know. ;) - Kittybrewster17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are they Knights Commander (title) or Knight Commanders (line 1) - Kittybrewster 10
Hi. The naming conventions say that it is acceptable to use a title to disambiguate between two (or more) people of the same name, one of whom has a title. I always think it's rather messy and counter-intuitive to use dates as the disambiguating factor. And the conventions don't actually seem to allow for them anyway, preferring a descriptor. -- Necrothesp09:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thaxs for the welcome! i feel adjusted to the site and have good time to fool around with somethings in the sand box lol so yea and ttyl Daft SPARTAN-11700:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Craigy,
I am enjoying wikipedia so far... there is lots of good stuff here. I am looking forward to contributing as well.
Perhaps you are not the correct person to ask... but I will anyway....
If I edit a page to either correct or add information, must I have a source? There are some things I know, but would be hard pressed to find a definative reference.
I tried to find the answer to this question in the help, but was not succesful.
Thanks for uploading Image:Dublincastle.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Hofburgthrone.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Monacogrimthroneroom.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Could you tell me what programme you use to make coats of arms? Is it Maitre D'Armes, and if so, do you know a place where you can download this securely? Thank you.--Abc181815:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image is here; of "Rt. Hon. Lord Otho Augustus FitzGerald", entitled "A Message from the Queen". Vanity Fair, Spy, 1873. He appears to be carrying a staff of office, but I don't know which. Choess22:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of High Commissioners from the United Kingdom
I've moved the series of lists of ambassadors from the United Kingdom to 'List of High Commissioners from the United Kingdom to Foo', including articles that you have recently created (High Commissioners from the United Kingdom to Australia, etc). The previous naming convention, which I had adopted in the first place, was simply inadequate to indicate that the articles were lists; this standard ought to work for that purpose. Bastin 11:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please could you let me know how you generated excellent depictions of coats of arms on the page Duke of Buccleuch and elsewhere? I have a need to generate some heraldic images (for coats of arms) for several articles and am not proficient in this. Very grateful if you can help. The blazons of arms are given at Prince Belmonte under 'Arms', and there is almost total overlap with Duke_or_Duchess_of_Acerenza and Marquess_or_Marchioness_of_Galatone, although the blazon for 'Grillo' also appears in these latter two cases. This is a piece of urgent work that I would gladly something that I would be glad to offer reward for- in terms of a donation to Wiki if that is appropriate. Please could you guide me on the best way of accomplishing this goal of depicting these arms to your high standard? Thank you- Aquilachrysaetos07:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Effort is underway to delete coats of arms you created
It appears that a concerted effort is underway to delete coats of arms you created on the basis that you categorised them as coat of arms, and that means fair use, meaning that as fair use images they cannot be used in templates. If you created them you might want to recategorise as PD-user. That way you claim copyright and then release them fully for usage. Durininsists on deleting your version of the Greek royal coat of arms from the Greek royal template. FearÉIREANN\(caint)15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted no images uploaded by Craigy144. In the particular case Jtdirl is referring to, Image:RoyGrec.png was removed from {{House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece)}} because it is tagged with {{coatofarms}}. The best interpretation of this tagging is that we can use it under fair use. Jtdirl asserts you created this image, but there is at this time no on-wikipedia evidence of this. Do not re-tag this or any other image of yours as {{PD-user}} unless you actually created the image yourself. Improper tagging, especially assertions of self-creation when there is evidence of it not being so, is highly inappropriate, so I encourage you not to do so. If you did in fact create this image, then certainly tag it as above, and by all means feel free to put it back on the template in question, or indeed any other template where you feel it is appropriate. All the best, --Durin16:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found another image with similar problems as noted below. I then found a number of other images with similar problems, for example Image:Bucc1565coa.JPG and Image:Bucc1806coa.JPG. I'd appreciate it if you would go through all of your image uploads for coats of arms and rectify any situation where there is no source and/or no license other than {{coatofarms}}. Thanks and all the best, --Durin17:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:RoyGrec.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kotepho16:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unspecified source for Image:Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen-arms.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen-arms.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Durin17:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen-arms.png
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Durin17:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Load this page from archive.org and take note of the two links at the bottom. They download, but I'm on a Mac right now, so I don't know if they work. The second link appears to be the clip art package. Choess21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh. It works, but the quality still falls far short of Bunel's images, which must require a very serious clipart package on the backend. Choess01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:GG-Crest.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.
If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Durin11:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By pure chance I was flicking at that moment and did wiki later for the title to see if he was genuine. I agree atm that he's not notable enough to merit an article but I suppose if he wins or comes close then things may well change - he didn't seem to have that sensational a voice so I'm not holding my breath Alci1223:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, rather belatedly, that you added CB to Dick Douglas at the end of December 2005. He seems a rather unlikely recipient of that honour, so I wondered what your source was - from the date of your addition, I assumed it was from New Year Honours, but he is not listed. Can you shed any light?--George Burgess11:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I see that you reverted my category change, stating that they are not chivalric orders. Of course you are quite right, they are not. However the category that I was assigning them to was 'Orders of knighthood of the United Kingdom'. My particular interest is in military decorations and campaign medals, but I do have a familiarity with this topic. It has always been my understanding that these are orders of knighthood - I have certainly seen them categorised as such in a number of books.
Hi, while it was nice of you to create a wiki link to the 16th Baroness Wentworth, famous for the Crabbet Arabian Stud, it's a red link. While there is an article on her mother, Lady Anne Blunt, there isn't a separate one for Judith. Would you care to create one? It would be very nice if you could! I just know the horse stuff, I'm no expert on the nobility "stuff." Montanabw22:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice piece. I added a bit on the horse stuff, created a references area for footnotes, added a category and did a few style tweaks. If I overdid it, just edit accordingly. Montanabw19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you are the peerage expert, can you fact-check the end of the Crabbet Arabian Stud article, "Crabbet under Cecil Covey" section, and explain if Lady Anne Lytton and Lady Winifred Tryon are the same person or two different people? Also, can you connect the dots of Lady Anne Lytton's title to Lady Anne Blunt, given that somehow it appears that Lady Wentworth's title didn't go to her daughters, even though, according to the Lady Anne Blunt article, it was supposed to?? Just curious...and thanks in advance. Montanabw19:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In July 2005, you edited the Earl of Galloway article, adding 'Senwick House' as the family seat. Is this right? Senwick House is today a nursing home, and I can't find any association with the Earls of Galloway. According to this article, the last residence of an Earl was at Cumloden, Galloway House having been sold in 1908. - Crosbiesmith12:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see it's listed as an address in the 1998 Who's Who. I think I'll remove that though. The 13th Earl may or may not live there still, but I don't think it can be described as a 'seat'. Regards, Crosbiesmith12:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Rowan Williams coa.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Craigy, in the last months I've seen you had corrected categories belonging to royal orders (moved Category:Officers of the British Empire to Category:Officers of the Order of the British Empire, in example). Nice work, by the way. Do you intend to do this also on the Order of St John? It think Category:Something of the Order of St John would look better than the version now (Category:Something of St John). Greetings Phoe16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orphanbot has already removed the COA you uploaded from the archbishop's bio. Please help and provide source and licensing info before someone deletes the image. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list of office-holders files them under "Gentlemen of the Bedchamber," but when describing the Ladies of the Bedchamber, says that they "performed the same duties as lords of the bedchamber did for a male sovereign." I think that's sufficient evidence to treat them as the same thing. I suspect that "Gentlemen" is the older term, perhaps from the Tudor period, when the Peerage waxed lean, and it became "Lords" when the posts began to be filled by peers. Choess04:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you removed the "Sir" some while ago. From what I can see you were correct but this goes against universal usage in his home country so some clarification could be made on the page to avoid it being added in again by. See the note someone has put in the "talk" section. --Snori04:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I see that you disagree with me over the present Baron Lucas of Crudwell. Who's Who (2003 edition) and dodonline.co.uk lists Ralph Matthew Palmer as the 11th Baron. Also, Debrett's (1990 edition) lists his mother as the tenth holder and does not include Anthony Grey (Earl of Harold) in the numbering. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to Burke's or The Complete Peerage, so I don’t know if they disagree with Debrett's (also don’t know which of the three is considered the most authoritative). What are you sources for the present Baron being the twelfth holder? Hopefully we can sort this out. Regards Tryde17:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Thanks for your answer. I have also enquired with user:Proteus (on the recommendation of user:Kittybrewster) who has access to The Complete Peerage, and according to him the Earl of Harold is included in the numbering also in this work. I have re-written the article on the Baron Lucas of Crudwell accordingly but included a note that Debrett's and dodonline.co.uk seem to disagree on the matter. Regards Tryde21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your comment "his totally confuses me as to why it didn't just pass to the duke's eldest daughter, the Countess of Breadalbane and Holland (mother of Lady Grey)" The writ only accelerated the transfer to the named individual and his heirs according to the remainder of that title. So if the The Duke of X has a daughter b, a son y who has a son z. Then the acceleration would cause the numbering to go up one and to go to y. If y dies then the title goes to z potentially the titles could stay forever seperated. If z then y dies the title reverts to the Duke as the writ only applies to a named individual it accelerated. A barony by writ has never been accelerated in favour of a female and could only I suppose be done if she was the only heir of a deceased male heir apparent to the title Alci1211:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would if only I could cite a source! While I know it to be true I can't cite it which I'd really prefer. However it's so obscure an issue it's next to impossible to cite. [Ed. Oh this might do indeed it might - from the debate inthe HoL wrt the exclusion of HPs.
Baroness Jay of Paddington :The fact that the holder of a peerage by virtue of acceleration is the holder of a hereditary peerage is confirmed by the case in 1689--I am sure that will attract the Committee's attention and support--of Charles Boyle, the eldest surviving son of the Earl of Burlington, who was summoned to Parliament in 1689 in his father's barony of Clifford. He died in his father's lifetime, leaving a son. On the death of the Earl's son in 1694 the grandson claimed and received a writ of summons in the barony. This illustrates that the effect of an acceleration is to hasten the descent of the dignity but not to change its nature." Alci1216:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup...took a little thinking but I was sure I must be able to find a source . Do you know how to move a page? As it's a writ in acceleration not 'of' even if it's commonly so called.[1]Alci1216:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's given me a headache but I'll finish the article first. Sadly as one problem seems solved I have rememered another. I'm *sure* but again without source that the writ has one other consequence that's almost unique (there is another way but it's equally rare) that it grants the right to the eldest son the supporters of his father with his arms (with lable as eldest son obviously) [Ed btw did you not miss Flora Ann Madeline Hubble b. 12 Jun 1957 from your edit to the hastings barony? ] Alci1217:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Lizwar.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
I left that as much so anyone looking at the article and thinking they knew how the system worked wouldn't change the hon's all to lord or vice versa as the WoP is v rare. Just so you're clear I wasn't having a go :) Alci1223:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those peerages with heirs with earldoms or below are a pain as their sons/daughters dying at the wrong moment can leave them with unexpected titles that take a really careful look to spot. Took me a good few minutes to quite work out what was happening. I make enough mistakes, usually when I edit late at night (looks at clock!) Alci1223:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unspecified source for Image:1st Duke of Grafton.png
Thanks for uploading Image:1st Duke of Grafton.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam(T/C)21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hey mate, i just started the page for Shwayze, getting the page together then you deleted it. any particular reason bro... cause this guy is starting to get big and definitely needs a wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipholio (talk • contribs) 07:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, was just thinking it would be much much better if Harry was listed somewhere in the title?? It got me a little confused when it said Henry. No doubt would confuse other people, plus most sources listed as it was edited. If your still not happy then leave it :-)
Still trying to work out how that happened, was going to revert it but u beat me to it :-) the university here uses a static IP for all the computers :-(
Hi. No doubt there is some reason why you have elevated Mary Boleyn to "Lady" status, but I can't see what it is ??? Deb18:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Craigy - Can you please advise on Wikipedia naming conventions? For a recent stub I used the form already set up as a red-link: Henry Bickersteth, 1st Baron Langdale, but the "1st" looks a bit odd to me since he was the only one. (The ODNB, NPG and others leave out the "first"). Thanks --HJMG09:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting my edit of the Francis Talbot, 11th Earl of Shrewsbury article. Of course they would have dueled with swords - I should have known better.
Thanks for uploading Image:Qu&DoE Wedding.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden09:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging for Image:Walter_Scott_9th_Duke_of_Buccleuch.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Walter_Scott_9th_Duke_of_Buccleuch.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Olgaofgreece.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Is Ada King-Milbanke, Baroness Wentworth is same person as Ada Lovelace?
I ask in part because I am trying to figure out why Lady Anne was not Lady Wentworth for most of her life...I had heard that she obtained the Wentworth title very late in life, just before she herself passed on, in fact...? If Ada King-Milbanke is not the same person, then what WAS her relationship to Lady Anne and how did Lady Anne get the title to pass on to her daughter Judith??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
<< I've included a diagram if that helps.>> DIAGRAM??? ARRGGHH! <grin> Well, actually, yes, it did help. Looks like the short answer is that Ada Lovelace died before her mother did, so that makes sense. Thanks! Montanabw04:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I notice you've made edits in the past to the Alexandre Frota article. I've expressed several concerns about the article on its Talk page; please take a moment to read them and help edit the article to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or it may be deleted.
(If your edits were strictly of the maintenance variety, and this information doesn't interest you, please pardon any perceived intrustion.)
An image you uploaded, Image:Royport.JPG, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
An image you uploaded, Image:Roybelg.JPG, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:1_Baron_Hunsdon_coa.png
Thanks for uploading Image:1_Baron_Hunsdon_coa.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for uploading Image:André Masséna coa.png. However, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Thanks for uploading Image:1st_Duke_of_Marlborough_arms.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:1_Baron_Loughborough.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
The building does look like this from the angle it was taken at. It is almost finished apart from the front end. It is a fine quality for wikipedia. Rasillon18:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image of the empire is from the BBC so I'll sort the tag out if you tell me how, are you an admin anyway?
Well that was fun, wasn't it! The image of the Empire wasn't taken from the BBC.. it originated from Commons (it was taken by yours truly, so I was able to identify it fairly quickly). He did the same with the Centre of Life photo. We'll just have to keep an eye on him... I trust his defense team will coach him appropriately. The JPStalk to me19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 7th January, you inserted a reference for the statement, "the only people to complain about the arrangements were the royal servants, who found the house too small." on the above page. I have checked the reference cited (Burke's, 107th ed.) and failed to find this information. Could you recheck the edition and page number, and re-insert the reference with it? Thanks. DrKiernan08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the above all those months ago. A question has now been raised about Image:Mary of Teck.jpg.[2] What was the original source of the photo? Did you download it direct from the V&A? You may of course not remember as it was so long ago. Thanks anyway, DrKiernan15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take issue with you over Maclean's departure from the BSP. It is true that he was dubious about L'Estrange Malone. But the BSP effectively excluded Maclean (at a meeting in 1920) because he also distrusted Rothstein and said so. My sources?. Basil Thomson's reports
DJ19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I thought you had posted the modifications to L'Estrange Malone. There has always been an argument amongst socialists about Maclean's excusion from the BSP. So if it's alright with you, I'll post my version and see what happens. DJ12:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, a peer does not have a surname as he/she IS the name.
Secondly, forgetting about peerages, if the above lady were referred to in 'socialist' terms she would be Elizabeth Ivy Douglas-Hamilton, or Elizabeth Percy if she so chose not to take her husband's name. She certainly is not Elizabeth Hamilton, Duchess of Hamilton. This lady was born "Lady Elizabeth Ivy Percy", then married and became the "Marchioness of Clydesdale" latterly the "Duchess of Hamilton", the only surname this lady has ever had in proper terms is Percy. If, according to the somewhat questionable manual of style she must have a qualifier, it should be that of her maiden name as she does not possess a surname. Sorry I'm moving this page back. Brendandh09:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have seen that you have not included the Irish High Shrievalties of for example County Waterford, County Tipperary or County Monaghan. Was this intention? And can we perhaps make this up? Greetings ~~ Phoetalk20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Queen - Breakthru.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot07:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you're technically right, he did sit in the HoL by virtue of his barony of Cecil he was never (bar the writ itself and suchlike) known in the house by that title but by his courtesy title. As how he sat is explained later in the article I think perhaps Proteus's rvt is reasonable. Alci1216:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your hard work. The article in question, although titled "Douglas", refers to "Archibald Campbell". I know not which is correct. I have noted this on the article's talk page - please feel free to eliminate that talk-page comment when/if you get around to correcting this. No reply needed. Respectfully, BenedictX21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Georgeofgreece.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you rather over did your removals. It would be nice if you would justify your 'vandalism' please. For example, you removed one picture of the subject himself. The Junkers were the very models refered to, as was the ship of the Cayzer line. Every image was carefully relevant. I wonder, what's up? Could you please restore the images, and the Ukraine one had a usefull quote attached! Rodolph23:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why haven't you updated her page to represent that she is also a DBE? Why do I have to do it -- it is your claim/representation!! O'Donoghue16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated it by removing her name several times as I was unable to find any proof she was a DBE, as well as a GBE. You did not provide a link to the publication in question that you referred to in the edit summary of List of Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire to bolster your claim. If it is a fact, then you should add the category and the reference. The fact that you refuse(d) to do so despite your claim it is a "fact" is strange. O'Donoghue22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sending the link--I could not access it otherwise with my lousy ISP (I use MetConnect, no more need be said, I trust).
I am still not sure b/c both Peerage.com and Brasseys of Bulkeley both fail to include the DBE title -- please read my comments on the discussion page at List of Dames Commander...
Not responded in re: Matilda Maria Helena Bingham Brassey (Dame of the Order of the British Empire) per the site I referenced; shouldn't she be added?
Not bothered to thank me even once or give me a barnstar for all my work in this category and for the mistakes you made which I corrected (Marjorie Maxse; Sarah Lees).
Re. your edit removing "The Honourable" , I'm attempting to understand the background to WP policy on this and believe that there has been some discussion on the subject, which I'm unable to find. If you could add some pointers/info. to my request on WP:Village Pump (policy) I'd be grateful. Thanks :-) - John11:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Craig! Firstly, well done indeed on constructing the remaining templates! However, I notice a load of redlinks - I'd suggest either removing the links, or linking to the current creation's section on the substantive peerage's page, like I did on the others, because, to be honest, the creation of pages for non-notable courtesy barons is not very likely... Cheers! DBD17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can the omagh bombing be described as a terrorist attack
List of Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire
Could you be a little more precise with the reference you have just added as the surname search provided does not seem to feliver the goods. Thanks Giano20:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:Non,_je_ne_regrette_rien.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Non,_je_ne_regrette_rien.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan0021:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Oswiecim.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot04:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Edf energy logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot)19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Edf energy logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
I have removed material from Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that I have to agree with your edit removing Lambton Estate. I can understand why some people think of it being part of SR, especially with Shiney Row's Biddick Woods Estate being a stone's throw from Biddick Hall.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a proper article for Shiney Row; current suburb of Sunderland with good travel links and a college centre doesn't really do the place justice
I just created this article and it was soon after marked for speedy deletion. Perhaps she was not that notable but she was a countess and the mother of an Earl. I am asking for your opinion because of your interest in peerage, such as: Mary Grey, Countess of Kent. Thanks for taking a look at Henrietta Villiers. Daytrivia14:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Edf energy logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If anyone is confused as to the naming of the offspring of Anne Duchess of Hamilton, and William, Earl of Selkirk, I suggest visiting Lennoxlove House. There, on the main staircase, are contemporary portraits of all of the male offspring of that union. The frames, which were specifically made at the time for the paintings, all clearly bear the surname Douglas-Hamilton. If specific Douglas-Hamiltons chose to shorten their names for brevity's sake, or others chose to call them by one or other of the compound surname, that does not alter the fact that they were still Douglas-Hamiltons. The only true unadorned Hamiltons of this family were the oldest brothers, as Duke of Hamilton. Brendandh11:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lise Thibault is still the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec. Pierre Duchesne has not been sworn in. [5]. According to the source, there will be at least a 2 week notice beforehand, and there has been no notice whatsoever of a date for the installation.--Ibagli (Talk) 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize I did anything to the bottom. I would hardly call verifiable facts an "agenda" though.--Ibagli (Talk) 20:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious about how to handle an article, Lady Eleanor Talbot where nearly the whole text appears to have been taken from tudorplace.com.ar (scroll about halfway down the page). Should it be rewritten, blockquoted, or a reference made with that information? Daytrivia00:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent on the 'pedia for using English translations of foreign names in our Royal Family – George II was born Georg August; Ernest Augustus I of Hanover was known in German as Ernst August; George V of Hanover became Georg Friedrich Alexander Karl Ernst August, but we continue to call him George Frederick Alexander Charles Ernest Augustus. So surely we ought to be translating the French Louis to Lewis, just like we would Ludwig? Or do we think it's just a German thing? Value your thoughts DBD17:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, I didn't think you were being awkward, we all edit as we see fit! I see your point, and will act with it in future – although, regarding your example, for me it's the opposite way, I'd rather be {e.g. Michael} than {e.g. Michelle} (as the French pronounce the former! And {e.g. Mike} rather than either!) DBD18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure whether or not queens regnant present an exception to the concept of courtesy titles jure mariti, so I assumed it not to be an exception – do you have a citation saying they are? DBD18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, of course the use ceased – she's Queen! But it's whether or not she is DssoE... DBD
Thanks for the addition to Ali Pasha Sherif. Can you add any more to that article on anything beyond his horse career? Like, just for starters, how did he get his titles? What did he do to get the money to be a horse breeder? (Inherited it, stole it, earned it, ??) All I can find are things about his horse breeding work (which is great as far as it goes), but nothing that fleshes out the whole human being the way we were able to flesh out Arabian breeders like Henry Babson or Homer Davenport, or, for that matter, Abbas Pasha. Thanks Montanabw(talk)22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And while you are at it, how/when/why did he earn the Knights Commander of the Order of the Star of India? That's something of interest... Montanabw(talk)02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Aberdeen-coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Duchy of Cornwall-coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:East-dunbartonshire-coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Freising coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:John XXIII coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Madeira coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Pius II coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Pius XII coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Somerset-coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Stafford-coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Suffolk-coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Surrey-coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Torbay-coa.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Archbishcantarms.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK03:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Craigy, old buddy, old pal: What say you create a short stub bio on Ada King-Milbanke, 14th Baroness Wentworth? She's now red linked on a couple different articles (Baron Wentworth and Lady Anne Blunt among them). The inheritance of the Wentworth peerage got a little weird around her time, and a short article might make it all a little clearer. (Like, was she Lady Anne's aunt or her niece and maybe you want to add in that handy-dandy chart you made for me as part of the article). Thanks! Montanabw(talk)19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Sneyd-Bagot-Paget.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I've now opposed the speedy renaming, because it isn't covered by the five criteria listed at the page. Please stop breaking all the Archdiocese of Los Angeles pages while discussion continues, per the CfD policies. Gentgeen20:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about the blocking, but I posted a notice here, and you kept on making the changes without replying to my concerns. I figured a short 15 min block wouldn't be too disruptive, but would stop any automated process that was going on long enough to be noticed. Gentgeen04:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you deleted this. Was it tagged for speedy deletion? It doesn't have it in you deletion summary, but that doesn't mean it wasn't. Could you clarify for me? Thanks. isaid06:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Buckthroneroom.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. BetacommandBot13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, what's the proper classification of Governors for succession boxes? Is it a military office? The governorships usually seem to be of castles, forts, or fortified ports. I've tried to throw together a quick list at the bottom of User:Choess/Offices; additions are welcome. Anyway, glad I could help. Choess01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Craigy144. I have noticed that you have created a template which produces a succession header for Freemasonry offices. Although such offices are indeed eligible for a header of their own, it is preferable not to create templates that can only used in titles belonging to a single organisation. In addition, the colour of the header is too vivid and, in addition, it is too dark for the letters to be easily legible.
WikiProject Succession Box Standardization have looked into the issue and suggest that Freemasonry offices are given a parameter in Template:S-npo, which is used for all non-profit organisations. The header will still write "Freemasonry offices" and its colour will be acceptable. In addition, this arrangement will allow for these titles to be readily placed in succession boxes in the correct slot, according to our Guidelines.
Thank you very much for your cooperation. We shall initiate the substitution procedures immediately.
By the way, and since you seem to be interested in succession boxes, how would you feel about joining SBS? We are in a great need of contributors, and we are always on the lookout for new members. Waltham, The Duke of13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I see that you have just fixed the problem with the Earls Grey. Funny thing how our paths meet. Waltham, The Duke of
With regard to this page and your "Vandalism Warning", I am not vandalising the page, and I left some information up there. The Earl had requested that the majority of the detail be removed and so I did that, according to what he thought appropriate. Please refrain from repeating your "undos". Thank you.
IF someone who is the subject of your entry has asked for it to be edited, do you not think that you should leave it how that is? It is not vandalism on my part, it is courtesy and respecting someone's wishes. Unless you are an accredited (if there is such a thing) contributor or editor, then I suggest you please leave this alone. If you are accredited, then you should at least respect the wishes of the individual concerned, as I originally stated, don't you think? I'm trying to be reasonable and have now left a fair amount in there. All that is requested is you leave things the rest out until later down the line (particularly with reference to children etc).
I'm afraid I feel you are being deliberately difficult. I have already explained that the earl desires to reduce the availability of information on the web. He is concerned over certain aspects of the entry, the reasons for which I would not like to go into with someone like yourself, a completely random stranger, but was happy with my last posting which incorporated the majority of your input. That you have locked the edit to "your" definition is perhaps a little childish or more generously cautionary but remains completely unsympathetic to an individuals request. I do not argue that what you have put is libellous or defamatory, far from it (perhaps the rugby "like" stature comment was a little unfounded but you have removed that), but I fail to see why you are so determined to ignore the concerns of the person of whom you write. I am fully aware that the information in question is readily available but making it less readily available is oft the desire of people in this position. For your information the "Henrican" descent you have posted here hangs on the wall of the lavatory at his home under the title "Are you sitting on the throne of the King of England". All very tongue-in-cheek. After all it is likely that Caroline would be first in line.
Please try to understand, this is not an attempt to undermine, just reach a compromise.
Discussing what hangs on his bathroom wall does not in any way cause concern in the way that parading of information on this page does. If you want me to be blunt, then I think the only way I can put it to you is to query whether you would like you house name and the fact you have a small child advertised to the whole world on the web?
As I have said, the information is not libellous nor inflammatory, and much of what was originally posted is there. One small request has been made and you have ignored it, rather unjustly it might be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkysfc (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I record here what I wrote to Moonriddengirl
Moonriddengirl
With regards to the 10th Earl of Jersey, the request concerns the removal of his daughter's details from the site.
The reason that most of the detail was removed is that a large part of the details, although readily available elsewhere, are extremely accessible via the internet and are details that some institutions use for access thereby just a precautionary measure but I freely admit there isn't any other defence of this removal.
I don't want to be setting a "precedent" either but there needs to be a balance between the eagerness in the sharing of information and a responsibility to respect living subjects wishes, particularly with regard to potentially sensitive information (e.g. with regard to children).
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Ashburton (1st creation) coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Heathfield coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Princess Anne arms.png. 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. BetacommandBot13:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you see I have nominated this article. Its very well referenced ... however the fact that I chose as the hook doesnt actually have a ref. I'm presuming this is an easy fix? Hope you are OK with the nom. Victuallers 08:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC). I thought about her not being a Duchess at the time ... but decided it was what she/history would want and you used Duchess for the article title. You are free to change it if you like Victuallers20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you've recently inserted a number of references to the London Gazette into Mistress of the Robes. You may not be aware that there is a template that you may find useful {{LondonGazette}} for references of this type. There has just been a major change in the way the urls for these references are constructed (fortunately yours are in the new format), if the template is used consistently it will help future maintenance of these references if the urls are changed again. It looks like you should have all the required information for the parameters to make the change very easy (I'm trying to concentrate on fixing articles which have been broken by the change). David Underdown15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Spencercoa.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot(talk)04:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Countess of Wessex coa.png. 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. BetacommandBot14:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that there is a consensus on this. I would remove the dates myself, but the Template:S-par page is protected. It would be greatly appreciated if you could just eliminate this headache. Do it and maybe I will buy you a drink afterwards. Waltham, The Duke of11:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings again, Craigy. Being an administrator, you should know that you will be hearing from me whenever there is a problem to fix with the templates, as most of them are protected and I do not have the rights to intervene (the result of a great misunderstanding; people just cannot understand how important I am). Do not worry though, as these are generally minor changes of little consequence. And, who knows, we might actually enjoy having our tea together.
Now, on to the point. As you can see here, my idea to combine academic, educational, and cultural offices in one header has kind of flopped. (Ah, the bygone era of Standard Oil and its fellow trusts...) Therefore, we are to retain the separate headers, which means that we need all three independent headers in our header scheme.
You are eager to see where I am taking this, aren't you? I am sure that you are. Well, even though I am tempted to keep this for a little more... Nah, I am too kind for this. All right, then: your task is to go to Template:S-edu and change it to read "Educational offices" instead of the current "Cultural and educational offices". This way it can be usable again. It will hardly take you any more time than it has taken you to read this very message, and you shall earn yourself a Kinder chocolate bar if you pull it off successfully. What could be valued more in this life?
PS: I should have said please somewhere in the message, but it does not fit with its jolly tone. If you do not like it, let me know and my next message will be much more polite—and boring. Cheers! Waltham, The Duke of19:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm....I'm not sure. I'm a sucker for Buenos, but I'd prefer you to show me a concensus than a half-hearted discussion, then I might be inclined to change it. I suppose another option would be to ask another admin, but I'd be quite happy to help if I knew proposals to change the template have been agreed. Regards, Craigy (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I believe that you would be content with the discussion here. The Irish brunette gave the two-member committee (Whaleyland and me) a pretty hard time back then on an assortment of issues. And, even without the "evidence" I hereby present to you, it is only common sense that, since there is an officially condoned header succession template (s-culture) which reads "Cultural offices", it is quite redundant to leave another template with the label "Cultural and educational offices", which was a later development anyway (something easily establishable from the template's history).
I do not blame you for wanting to do your job right. But I find all this paperwork a little tedious. After all, I have gotten used to hiring people to do this for me. ;-) Waltham, The Duke of22:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done. I had it in mind to nominate you for adminship actually. Your work has been great so far but I thought your edit count was a bit too low for now and didn't want to see you get thrashed at WP:RFA (I guess I like your eccentricity too much lol). Hopefully you'll make it soon though and accept when you think you're ready. Adieu for now, Craigy (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix, Craigy. About the adminship... Well, you have really caught me off guard here. I mean, I have always associated administrators with the War Against VandalismTM, and I have never really been much interested in this (although I do revert vandalism when I find it). People tend to raise the standards that users must fulfil when applying for administratorship, and, despite what Jimbo says, they do make a big deal out of it. My edit count is rising steadily, but it will definitely take a long time to reach the lofty heights of most other distinguished editors (especially since I try not to be too liberal with them, and get work done with as few as possible). What can I say...? I suppose I can consider it again in a few months' time. In the meanwhile, I can work on improving the standing of SBS and... cultivating my "ridiculous, eccentric, sarcastic nobleman" persona that has captivated the hearts of Wikipedians around the world (here it goes again). Well, see you around! Waltham, The Duke of23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Colwynarms.PNG. 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 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Cardiffarms.PNG. 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 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:HM Government Arms.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:HM Government Arms.png. 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 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why you undo my edits to this page? I see no reason not to link it to her family -- you'll see that in it's short history the Furtse (surname) page has been updated significantly. It is the family from whom she gets her name; that that she married in to.
Thanks
Showjumpersam (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bishofphoenarms.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Bishofphoenarms.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:EDF.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Joan Plowright.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Long time no see, eh? Well, Christmas has come and gone, and the New Year is in, and the holiday season has passed... It is fair to assume that, erm, "break's over", right? Call me impolite, call me insensitive, remind me as many times as you want that participation in WikiProjects is strictly voluntary, but my options are few. Extreme situations demand extreme measures, and me taking such steps as knocking on SBS members' doors for some Wiki-charity is rather extreme, if you ask me. I am a Duke, for Unicorn's sake.
To the subject: as always, there is a severe activity deficiency in the project—too much to do, and nobody to do it. I am not as much concerned about the editing progress, as this is supposed to be done by all editors. No, I am more worried about the guidelines and the templates, where there are still many things to be taken care of, numerous holes to be closed, countless loose ends to be tied up, immeasurable improvements to be made. In four words: decisions to be made. All I am asking for is a helping hand once in a while: add the SBS page to your watchlist (if you have not done so until now), and vote in the polls; as the majority of the proposals are rather uncontroversial, polls usually suffice for business to move on. If, of course, there is the slightest disagreement (succession boxes are rather straightforward, after all), more discussion can take place, until consensus is reached in the good old Wikipedia way. The fact is that the entire process will not take up more than a few minutes of your valuable time in any given day—and it is a rare event indeed to see more than two or three proposals submitted in a week. Actually, that speed would be ideal, as things right now move at much slower rates.
If we are to note any progress, we need participation. If you are interested enough to have signed up, I am not asking for much, am I? After all, aren't we all here because we are trying to make a difference? Waltham, The Duke of21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Ever heard of hard spaces? They are required in many cases by the Manual of Style, but most editors seem to ignore them entirely. There is an initiative attempting to change this situation; click here if you are interested. – Waltham
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard has never been known by his middle name - he has always been John Kerr (have a go at googling Lord Kerr or Sir John Kerr if you need proof - you will find him at Shell, Imperial College, the National Gallery, the House of Lords, Rio Tinto, Scottish American Investment Trust etc etc. I don't know how you change the title here to correct this - would you mind doing so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10-styb (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:21st Baroness Willoughby de Eresby coa.png
Thanks for uploading Image:21st Baroness Willoughby de Eresby coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Bagot coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Beaulieu coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Berwick coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Byron coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Carleton coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Chedworth coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Dacre coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Eliot coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Hawke coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Holland coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Howard de Walden coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Baron Petre coa.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:EDF.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Edf energy logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Hi, I just wanted to discuss your recent deletion of Counter-revolutionary's talk page. I was under the impression that it didn't qualify under U1, because there are other contributors than the user (and there's no indication that the user has engaged his Right to Vanish, and also considering that one of the folks under the CheckUser whose results led to the indefinite block is contesting the results (vigorously, using possible sockpuppets). Would you mind terribly if I undid your deletion, or at the very least, put a blocked sock template of it? We can decide what to do with it after this whole thing dies down. SirFozzie (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Yellow line colour requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
A tag has been placed on Template:Grimaldi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks for uploading Image:Jordan coa.png. 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 (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, at some stage, you've revised information about Fenella Fielding's year of birth. This is just to let you know that I recently changed the year in question to 1934 - and explained my reasons for doing so on the article's talk page. If you have any observations, please feel free to comment there. Thanks. --Error -128 (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:6th_Duke_of_Hamilton.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kellyhi!21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Aberdeen-coa.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kellyhi!22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Alex_Duff_Fife.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kellyhi!03:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:AlexIofGreece.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kellyhi!03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Qu&DoE Wedding.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Guest9999 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look for the link at the bottom of [9]. Someone apparently grabbed the website at some point and packaged it into a .chm file. Choess (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a problem with User:Artayes. He keeps removing the no-context SD tags from an article he created Bookworm (animated series) (cartoons). I actually don't have a problem with the article and it might pass on being deleted, but the fact he keeps removing the tag and ignoring warnings on his talk page from me and another editor and not responding is odd. He's removed the template three times and removed it again even after I left him a message detailing how to go about saving the thing. He also created another article, Bookworm (animates series) (cartoons), that I'm guessing is a copy of the original. I'd tag it, but the whole back & forth is getting annoying and I'm sort of out of good faith at this point. Sorry to drag you into it, but I figured an AIN report would take too long. Thanks! Pinkadelica05:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After being out of it for such a long time, I finally speedy tag an article just to have you delete it first! I am outraged! I demand you be desysoped! I - oh, what the heck have a smile. ^_^
WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
(All the following in a really angry tone)
I just don't get it. The article about Anastas Al-Karmali that you deleted, was only 5 minutes old. I was still editing it when you did so. Explain please?. Please revert the deletion so I can resume working on it. And next time if you have an issue with an article use the appropriate deletion tags. If you don't know the process please visit Wikipedia:Notability (people). Hakeem.gadi (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Since this is about an Arab linguist of Arabic, I don't expect a search engine test (Or to save time click here) in Latin Alphabet would be reliable. Why don't you try this test using أنستاس الكرملي or better clickhere, which gives 2290 hits. To put you in prespective as to the interpretation of the search result, Arabic constitutes only %0.3 of the web's textual content (1), while English constitutes %72 (2). This means that English content is 72/0.3=240 times more voluminous. This figure can be used to calculate how the search results would appear if the search were in English: 240*2290=549600 hits. If you feel that this discussion should be transfered to an admin who understands Arabic, please refer me to one. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You recently deleted the page Nouvelle chanson as a copyvio but after reading the authors statement in the sources section of the document it certainly appears to be original, and I was not able to find any matches on Google. - Icewedge (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete VEnice maki? Did you not see the "hold on". THis person is major artist in the USA with a record out and has performed with many rockstars including a personal invitation by Senator Hillary Clinton herself for him to do a show at one of her speeches. Why do you think that is a irrelevant when there is so many articles on wikipedia that are of lesser value?--Number1205 (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave the page (you already deleted it once). This as the article could provide particular advantage to the developing world. Also, the list was made based on a rigorous selection of the best survival books and the amount certain knots were selected.
Thanks.
what is this? You wiki has artist like Kina Grannis, Mieka Pauley, Tyrone Wells, and you won't have Venice Maki? Please explain. If you go to allmusic.com you will see all the facts are there about this artist and you will find too that articles have been written on this artist on google. He is a geniune artist with references. Please explain, other wise i would find it very hard to think wiki is a fair encyclopedia. You might as well delete any artist who has national attributes. So please explain..--Number1205 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your speedy deletion of Carl Allen Stevens stating lack of notability could be argued. This artist has been recently cited with newspaper articles and radio spots (as referenced in the citations on the page), and there have been several indications that he has influences in other important parts of the art world, I just didn't find those online yet. If this is not to be in discussion for deletion, please move the article to my userspace for saving and improving with more references. Thanks.
Amacanespie (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YOU TRASHER OF GOODNESS tot metal was an accrostic social comment on the german phenomenon of death metal and all that it concisely (and in acrostic format) deems to convey to it's faithful audience, why deny these people- these totters- the sense of pride they thoroughly deserveLit.women (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Asudem. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sebastian scha. (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hello i would request you not to delete this bands page because this is one of India's best metalcore bands,from new delhi if you agree to let me proceed with this page it would be really appreciating.please do reply baack on my talk page (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - just silly stuff... Look, if you need a pic of the castle in the 1950s, just shout. It's black and white (well obviously!) and shows a cow in the foreground, as the castle was surrounded by fields then. I might be able to dig out an interior shot too - although that would be relatively modern, and therefore rather delapidated. --seahamlass20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do for you tomorrow and let you know. I think the 1950s pic is around 1954(ish) - just the outside but looks lovely! The inside pics are of the top room (pigeon-stuff galore, as far as I remember) and an old staircase. (I think). I'll have to ask permission for use but, if agreed, I'll upload and then send you the links. --seahamlass20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to use whatever. I'm not touching the page - you are doing such a great job! Once you take it to GA/FAC, let me know and I'll email official picture usage permission across to Wikipedia, just to keep you right. (Took an article to FAC and had to do that for all 25 images... then ended up cutting half out anyway!)--seahamlass11:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Have you seen the new book Sunderland and its Origins - Monks to Mariners, by Maureen Meikle and Christine Newman? It includes quite a lot on the castle, including a cut-away graphic of what the inside used to look like and a colour reconstruction overview of the site. Really well done.--seahamlass11:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I'm on a mission to get through Peer Review at moment, and saw yours on the list.... Are you going for GA, or straight to FA?? --seahamlass17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are still looking for someone to copyedit the page, have you tried Malleus Fatuorum? He helped me with an FA back in March and is excellent at rooting out really tiny wrong details.--seahamlass23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought. If you are thinking about taking Hylton Castle to FAC at some point, they are incredibly strict about images. Specifically, they don't like images directly under headlines or sub-heads, and they don't like text to be squashed between two images. It's a whole new ballgame of fun at FAC!--seahamlass15:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work with fleshing this out a bit more,a nd taking up from where I left off in terms of fixing the references. i'm afraid I got a bit bored doing that one. David Underdown (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Lane Booker, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for uploading Image:Hylton Castle south face.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
hi i'm a new user and i just wanted to find out wat this website is all about i thought it was suipposed to be a virtual world where people can chat and do stuff pls give me hints and reply now.
Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many thanks for your photo offer, but I've already had to remove six pics to unclutter the thing following peer review and re-writes! I love images, and get a bit carried away, but am trying to curb this obsession now... "More is less" at FA (If I get that far) - I got clobbered by this before and ended up having to take off 13 in one go! (I think I was a tadge upset by that!) As to the other printing press, of that I'm doubtful. I've got photocopies of the 1976 Echo papers from when it moved, and it just says "we're moving from Bridge Street after 100 years" etc. But, it's certainly food for thought, and I'll check it out tomorrow. Thanks!--seahamlass23:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duh - what an idiot I am! I stuck that stuff in..."new machine and composing rooms built on West Wear Street etc"...Then not only got it the wrong way round, but then forgot about it! (Well, I guess it was a few months ago..) Thanks for pointing that out - much appreciated! Just been reading your first comment again - when you say the old printing press - do you mean the dilapidated old building right next to Wearmouth Bridge...now home to luxury Echo 24 flats?--seahamlass00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checked it out. The delapidated old building was definitely the printing hall of the Echo - built almost in the shape of a ship, apparently. The front entrance of the paper was in Bridge Street, and the printing hall then extended back and sideways. When the Echo shifted in 1976, the whole place was deserted. All newspaper operations moved from there to Pennywell that year. However, I've been told that the printing hall was later taken over by (Edward?) Thompsons and used for printing purposes for some years after. By the way, cheers for changing my error - I tried to do it when you pointed it out, but internet connection kept cutting off.--seahamlass11:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]File:Echofrombridge.jpg
Hi there. Thanks for the message! I got bored waiting around for GA review after a week or so, so took it to FA instead. Loads of constructive comments etc, but made it in the end... How goes it with Hylton Castle? I noticed you had removed some of the pics and it certainly looks a lot 'cleaner' now. Think I'm going to have a go a the Victoria Hall Disaster next. That should be a challenge!-- Seahamlass11:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When using the tool, please remember that an account CAN BE made if it is similar to another account, as long as the similar account has not had any recent contributions. Thanks, DustiSPEAK!!01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ball is in your court. The reviewer is asking for clarification of some points that can only be done by someone with the right sources. I'll help with the copy editing where I can, but you have the initiative. I think these are only minor changes required and the article is very close to GA. Good luck. Nev1 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. It's been a week and there are still outstanding items from the GA review. If you're working on the article and would like me to hold off a little while longer, please let me know. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Craigy
Could you shed some light on this? ThePeerage.com shows that Admiral Amelius Beauclerk had a son, Charles Frederick Augustus de Vere Beauclerk, born in 1836. It doesn't seem very likely, given his martial status, and I don't trust the source, except where it agrees with other sources. It's your area of expertise - any ideas? One more question - do you access the text of the DNB online? If so, how? Thanks Shem (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Craigy144,
I wonder if you would be able to look at Marguerite, Duchess of Orléans I started the page and was immediately tagged for notability by user:Tom. After communicating with him he responded with "I see an article that doesn't really say why she is notable, rather who she is related to. Therefore, why does she deserve an article? This reasoning must be expressed in the prose."
My question to you is would you have an idea on how I can defend the article? Especially since her only claim to notability is that she was a Duchess? Daytrivia (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi-
I am new to Wikipedia and I was wondering if you could help me make it so this page is no longer marked as paroled. I don't understand exactly what I can do to make it more notable. Do I need to include on the page all of the websites of the organizations that RaDene is involved in and mentioned on? Also, how do I make it less of an advertisement? I have done my best to not make it come across this way. That is why it barely mentions that she is running for senate and focuses more on her background and community service. I started this page because of the 16th Utah Senate District page, which had a link for her opponent's name and her's and she didn't have a page in place.
Any advice on the aforementioned issues and any others that you might pick up on reading around the site would be very welcomed.
Asmile4u (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather out of line—I expected more from an administrator. We don't delete articles on Wikipedia because they are controversial or POV. We fix them instead. Hitler is a controversial subject, but nobody would think in their right mind of deleting that article, for example. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)09:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I found this page by monitoring page moves that occur with WP:PLANTS-related articles. I was wondering if you could enlighten me as to the reason for all that disambiguation in the page name. Is (1630-1715) really necessary? What is this woman's real name? If she's simply Mary Capel, then the it would seem that the page should be named that, without her title. If she's more well known by her married name, then I'd assert that her page should be named Mary Somerset. Thoughts? --Rkitko(talk)12:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, You deleted my article about Nyrva Dragonrhyne stating it had no importance. But I did not get a chance to add more details before you deleted it. You allow postings about all sorts of fictional mediums, so why not this? (Do a search for "Nyrva Dragonrhyne" on Google! The character is everywhere!) I happen to know the artist and he gave me permission to post about this character on here. The artist, James Williams, is a real live person and created the "Nyrva Dragonrhyne" character. If people can post stuff on here about movies that haven't even come out yet (such as "Power of the Dark Crystal") then why can't I post this?
Please help. And please tell me what kinds of things must be posted to make the article compliant with Wikipedia? Also, how do I put images on here to support the article? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witaku (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the article failed A7, since it's about a fictional character, and works of fiction are not subject to speedy deletion under that criterion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
more than technically. such an article, good or bad, cannot be deleted under A7. The exclusion of fictional characters, is deliberate, repeatedly affirmed, and fully discussed on the talk page. It even appears on the template, so its more than a little careless for that mistake to have been made.DGG (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The artist's handle, "Neomorphasis" is even more prominent on Google. As long as you allow posts about movies that have yet to surface, what's the difference?
(Not trying to be a "wise guy" -- asking a fair question). Would it be more appropriate to put something about the artist?
In that case- How can I get back the article that was deleted, but then change the heading? Or do I have to recreate the thing from scratch?
I admit, I'm new to Wiki- as far as posting goes. So I'm not entirely sure what I'm doing but I wanted to make this, what I believe to be a great contribution.
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I've been on vacation. I'll have to think about it for a few days. RfA can be a rather bruising process nowadays, but I think the worst my record here shows is the occasional snide remark and some retrospectively silly policy ideas. Anyway, I'll let you know by the end of the week. Choess (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the GA review of this. I will have some preliminary results posted soon. I usually make a number of passes thru the article. Thanks, Madman (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies. I was under the impression that "sir" wasn't to be used in titles; I wasn't aware of the exception for baronet's.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs)
Due to a bet from Peter Cohen (don't know if you've run into him before) I'm trying to get the list of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead up to Featured List status (yeah, weird reason, but it's worked). I've so far (in the last week-and-a-bit) managed to complete the list, make the dates more accurate, include a column of the MP's party and (started) writing articles on those people previously redlinked. What I can't seem to do is write the prose at the beginning; are you any good at that kind of thing? Ironholds03:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there are many of those; most of the ones I haven't been able to complete are commoners (precisely the reason I haven't been able to do so, things like the ODNB and so on are no use). Thanks for the offer however; who normally helps you with prose then? Ironholds03:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also said "missing bio's", i.e the names and people not linked and still missing. Rule 1) always leave a get-out clause :P Ironholds03:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I trust you know, you're an excellent article writer. And my humble thanks for your RfA nomination. As you can probably see, the major effect of my getting the bit has been to treat the RfA as an editor review. :) Anyway, thanks for the further correction on Vane/Powlett's titles, and feel free to hack away at User:Choess/OfficialsGuide; maybe once it's stable, we can find a WikiProject to adopt it. Choess (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Craigy - sorry to have missed you. Internet down for almost a day! Yes, I've seen the statue!! Bit of a hoo-hah around it quite recently, as the owners - a firm which built luxury flats in the old police station - tried to sell it off to the council (so I've been told) - and the council didn't want it. Rumour has it that it has been sold to two local men, who want to preserve it for the future. But I'd have to check it out.-- Myosotis Scorpioides07:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you removing the VC dab from articles? This is a very commonly used disambiguator, and is the convention for the names. I suggest you try and find some consensus for this, I notice Michael Murphy has been reverted already. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No policy (though there is no naming policy anywhere), not even a guideline, simply the convention that has developed. Originally they were at full names when moved over during the Victoria Cross reference migration project. Since then, VC has become the common disambiguator for VC recipients. How would you deal with John Ryan (VC 1857)John Ryan (VC 1863)John Ryan (VC 1918)? Woody (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I was actually about to contact you! I have seen all your good work, even if I have never actually corresponded with you. ;) If there's anything you can add, feel free; it is rather lacking at the moment. Kind regards, ;) --Cameron*20:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shared interests is an understatement. And...we must be the only two wikipedians interested in British royal state coaches. ;) Finding info on them is very difficult indeed! I want to write one about the Glass Coach but info is very hard to come by. Best, --Cameron*20:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right! I had the mailbox link already but thanks for the other one! I will get round to it tomorrow but feel free to make a start if you feel so inclined! Best, --Cameron*20:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I just popped here to say I have just finished the article State Coach Britannia. Prince, couldn't you have given me those links earlier!?! ;) Anyway I have had a quick look at them and I think the info in them is more or less covered. Feel free to add anything I may have missed! Best, --Cameron*13:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, how embarassing! Yes, I rather think you are right. Some of the sources are so old, it was hard to tell. Thanks! --Cameron*13:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a sinecure; see the article stub and the british-history.ac.uk source linked there. By the end of the 17th Century, at least some of the Clerks of the Signet were explicitly authorized to appoint deputies to carry out their business, and enjoyed the revenues of the post without ever coming to the Signet Office. By Taylor's time, in fact, even the deputy clerkships were to some degree sinecures (they had to sign some papers; Taylor's nephew Bridges got a deputy clerkship in 1841), and the "Record Keepers and Receivers of Fees" did the real work of the office. The Great Seal Act 1851 did away with both the Clerkships of the Signet and the Privy Seal; the remaining duties of the Signet Office were transferred to the Home Office, and the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor given rulemaking authority regarding letters patent to pass the Great Seal. Choess (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Ah thanks, my mistake, I thought the Remebrancer nominated all the High Sheriffs, but as you note the source states otherwise. Tim! (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the two articles which hopefully clarifies my understanding of the topic. I found a few references to the ceremony as "pricking for sheriffs" which show it applies to all the High Sheriffs. Tim! (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The High Sheriffs' Association describes the "pricking" as a ceremony common to all sheriffs. However, the ceremonies for Lancashire and the remainder of England are separate. Perhaps "Lites" applies only to Lancashire, although a Notes and Queries of 1929 says the term was only used for the list of candidates for Yorkshire. Choess (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Choess may well be onto something here that the "lites" is not the general ceremony. The general procedure for choosing the High Sheriffs is known as "pricking", for example as stated here [10], [11], [12]. Maybe the article would be better titled "Nomination of High Sheriffs" (as the High Sheriffs' Association calls it here [13]) and make separate section for the procedures for different counties? Tim! (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Careful. I think we have two separate procedures here. The "Nomination of High Sheriffs" is the announcement of the three persons per shrievalty to be presented to the Queen. The actual selection occurs when the Queen pricks one of those three names for each shrievalty. (In practice, of course, the first name is always pricked, and the other two move up a place at the next nomination.) I'm not sure whether these should be covered in separate articles or have one omnibus article for the whole process. Choess (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this up gentlemen. I was under the impression The Queen only 'pricked' three names for Lancs et al, but I suppose she has to do a fair bit of pricking (no laughs please) ;-)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I've just looked in the history of this article and see that you moved it to a hyphenated version in August. The surname of his ancestors might have been hyphenated but as far as I can establish, Pitt Rivers did not hyphenate his name. The Museum in Oxford named after him, the gallery at Salisbury Museum and all the books written about him do not hyphenate it. I have changed it back to the non-hyphenated version. Do you have evidence for the hyphenation as used referring by or to him rather than his ancestors, who might have decided to introduce the hyphen? Cheers Roisterdoister (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, what to do? Follow the name as it was officially given but, as it appears, was not used by him? All the biographies of him spell it without, and I assume the authors researched the matter in some detail. I can't believe a Museum named in his honour would get it wrong either! Isn't there some WP about using the name that the person themselves used? Roisterdoister (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain that I am making these additions in the proper format or protocal.
I added bio information which is absolutely true and I don't think any copyrights were violated as I took this from my own factual CV.
Anyway that you may be able to tell me how I can make or edit these entries without problems which cause deletions , would be very much appreciated.
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a 'no evidence of permission' tag to your image of Sir William Paulet, the first Marquis, as I can find no evidence that you requested permission to add the image. The painting may have been created over 100 years ago but the actual painting is owned by Winchester City Council and hangs in Winchester City Council premises. Should you wish to use a better quality image one can be provided as long as the image is properly referenced and credited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross Turle (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:1marqwinch.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Matthew Kilburn, the writer of the ODNB entry, has complained at Talk:Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth that the article is "too similar" to the ODNB article. I agree with him - several parts are almost word-for-word copies. I have added the copyvio template for now, but no doubt the offending text could be rewritten. The instructions for the template also instruct me to add the following template. -- Testing times (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright problem: Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Amalie von Wallmoden, Countess of Yarmouth.
Thanks for uploading Image:Jeanoflux.PNG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Esrever(klaT)18:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Alfred DoE.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Garneau&Queen.png. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice you added a page on Reader Bullard, saying it incorporated material from the 1885-1900 DNB. This doesn't make much sense, given RB's dates - and if it's based on his ODNB entry (I haven't checked) there may be copyright issues. Dsp13 (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on John Lovelace, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because John Lovelace is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting John Lovelace, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Gazette have just completely changed their url scheme, the basic search page is now at http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/search, I've just updated the template so everything should keep working, but you may need to force a purge of your cache to see the updated version, and if you spot any problems this may be the reason. For reference, the notarchive= parameter is no longer required. David Underdown (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:DavidCane also noticed that the very first editions, back to issue 1, published as the Oxford Gazette are now available. This very first edition includes the list of Sherrifs for 1666, curiously there's no sign of Lancaster being treated any differently at this time (nor Cornwall, but presumably the Duchy was merged in the Crown at this time). See "No. 1". The Oxford Gazette. 7 November 1665. David Underdown (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have the dates for LL of Surrey fixed now. What's your source? He's not in Sainty's list and I can't find any direct references in the Gazette for the 1702-1710 period. Choess (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On further search, Doyle's Official Baronage shows Berkeley as CR of Surrey only, and Northumberland as LL from 1702-1714, as Sainty. Collins' Peerage speaks of him as both CR and LL from 1710. Choess (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Welcome & the Buccleuchs/Montagu Douglas Scott surname
Many thanks for your welcome message and your information and tips about formatting on Wikipedia pages, with respect to peerages.
As for including the full given names, the Scott family re-uses the names of heir apparent males, and often it's only the middle names that differentiate them. The names William and Walter are clear examples in the MDS family. As an example of the sort of problem this can cause for one researching the Dukes, the Wikipedia entry lists the 9th Duke as "John Scott, 9th Duke of Buccleuch" (his name was Walter Francis John, although he used "John", so the use is acceptable), yet if one were to search simply "John Scott", his name doesn't appear on the search results page at all (John Scott). Searching "John Montagu Douglas Scott" won't get one readily near the result, either. Further to the same, many male members of the family are known by their middle names; for example, "Douglas Andrew" was known as "Andrew"; his father's names were "Claude Andrew", but he was known as "Andrew", too; his grandfather's names were "Herbert Andrew", and he was known as "Andrew", as well: it can be very difficult to differentiate if one doesn't include all given names. I think you were pointing strictly to the use of middle names in page titles, and if this was the case, then I assume the use of full names within articles is acceptable.
My use of "His Grace, Her Grace" is, I imagine, a formality bred into me as a Montagu Douglas Scott; certainly, I don't expect any more deferential treatment than the next person, and I haven't noticed that tendency amongst the majority of the family members. With respect to this, I do appreciate your comments tremendously, because one cannot imagine all the innuendoes a phrase may carry; since my form of address wasn't meant to convey an elitist tone (was aiming for the historical correctness), I'll review the articles and remove the same. To members of the Scott family, the titles are simply a symbol of respect for an historical tradition -- not an attempt at class distinction; simply put, it's all part of what should be simply a rich and fascinating family, and national history.
As for the unhyphenated use of the Montagu Douglas Scott surname, I have left the explanation in the discussion section of My Talk page Wettin Talk.
I apologise for making the mistakes of a "newbie". Thanks for the tip on moving pages. I hadn't noticed the tab, and it's most helpful!
On 26 August 2008 you expanded this article, to include a section that said Lord Londonderry was styled "The Hon. Charles Vane-Tempest" between 1852 and 1872. Do you have a source for this? One would have expected his successive styles to be:
1852-1854: Mr Charles Vane-Tempest, as eldest son of Lord George Vane-Tempest
1854-1872: Viscount Seaham, as eldest son of the 2nd Earl Vane
1872-1884: Viscount Castlereagh, as eldest son of the 5th Marquess of Londonderry
1884-1915: The Most Hon. the Marquess of Londonderry, as the 6th holder of that title.
In an edit of 14 June 2006 to this article you've said the subject was styled "Lord Wycombe" between 1856 and 1863. Though he sat in the Lords by virtue of that title, he surely would have continued to be styled by his higher courtesy title as the eldest son of the Marquess of Lansdowne? Opera hat (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great catch! I uploaded the picture of Corder ages ago, courtesy of Sunderland Antiquarian Society, and it already had James William Corder written on it. (Hence, I took it as the correct name). Saw your changes today, contacted the society to check it out and, hey presto, a quick look at the records revealed Watson as the right middle name. (It was the maiden name of his mum?) I'm impressed! -- Myosotis Scorpioides19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:George 1st Kent.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I found two articles both referring to Cox Green and merged Coxgreen to Cox Green. I assumed the version on the ordnance survey map (Cox Green) to be the official version. You have now moved Cox Green, Sunderland, to Cox Green, Tyne and Wear. I have no objection to that except that: there are a lot of links to change. I have fixed {T&W places} and Cox Green (disambig), but not the ones pointing to Cox Green, Sunderland. It might be easier to leave it at Sunderland(?).
Also, I want to move Coxgreen Footbridge to Cox Green, Footbridge, but it also has a lot of links. Do you have any knowledge of what the correct name is for the footbridge? It might actually be Coxgreen. Please respond here - I will watch it. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it - there is no definition of hamlet/village/town etc. Village is sufficient to suggest it is small. Or, you could use (small) settlement. I have cycled through there - the steps off the footbridge are interesting(!). Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
I removed the middle names because they aren't used for other people. For example, we don't put HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales or HRH Prince Christian Valdemar Henri John of Denmark, etc. I switched out 'von' and 'zu' in the cases of princely houses and those with titles, and left it as 'von' etc for non-titled Count families like the Stauffenbergs. I hope that cleared it up a bit :) Morhange (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your kind comments - I'm glad my photographs were appreciated. I was fortunate enough to visit one of Ede & Ravenscroft's main storage warehouses yesterday (a tour was organised by a society I'm in) and they'd set up a display of various interesting examples of academic and ceremonial dress - in addition to the various mantles, there was a Pursuivant's tabard and an Earl's coronation robe. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:MarlboroughCoatOfArms.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MarlboroughCoatOfArms.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry that I missed your comment -- alas, I haven't logged in to the wikipedia in a while and just read it today. I actually do have thoughts on the matter, but I don't know whether it's worth expressing them or where to do so. I've read the AfD discussion, but of course I have no way of seeing the talk page discussion you invited me to. Cheers, Doops | talk14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Lady Anne Lambton.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Lady Anne Lambton.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. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Duchy of Cornwall-coa.png.
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I know you have been creating a lot of good articles on peeresses. I think this lady (wife of the 1st Marquess of Salisbury) deserves an article (she has an entry in the DNB). So if you have the time and energy perhaps you can add something on her. Regards, Tryde (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Hon. Margaret Rhodes.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Hon. Margaret Rhodes.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. BJBot (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in how you thought that some of the Dictionary of National Biography articles you've been quoting from are in the public domain. Alexander Ludovic Duff's article for example wasn't published until 1949 - well within the realms of copyright. The article is so similar to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article that their copyright has no doubt been infringed as well. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 11:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Craigy, justed wanted to inform you that instead of {{s-non | reason=New creation}}, you can also use the shorter {{s-new|creation}}. The latter doesn't require the "|-", that is necessary with s-non occasionally. Alternatively you can replace the variable "creation" with "office", "constituency" or even "regiment". Best wishes ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 22:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sincerely, especially for your contributions of Spoken Articles
Dear Craigy144,(I hope this is the appropriate place to post my comments).
Having suffered a life-altering injury as a young adult, I cannot tell you how I appreciate your work in Spoken Articles, especially. I remain literate, and manage with ancillary devices; all the more so as technology grows exponentially in the post-internet world. Had such been available when first I needed it, I might have continued in my academic career ... an impossibility at the time.
It is, however, such a simple matter for me to use ‘Spoken Articles’ as if one were reading for me ... it makes the very challenging almost effortless, thus all the more enjoyable; it further allows one to focus on the material alone, without one’s concentration being divided between the effort to read and the reading matter.
You are not only generous with your time and talents, but also, I should like to add that you have the gift of an exceptional speaking voice to create such excellent sound files. (Your Received Pronunciation is a further bonus ... but then I am prejudiced, being English myself, though simply working-class).
I thank you once again, most sincerely, sir ...
— (and if reading post-injury were the painstakingly arduous task for you that it is for me,
you would know how very earnest I am in thanking you) —
Regards, Christian Gregory, (formerly of So'ton, Hants)
Post Scriptum: No need of a reply — ‘Craigy is busy in real life ... ’ as you state — however if you wish and can via e-mail that would be ideal, but other to that my talk page will do ... when I remember it. Cheers!
I was led to the article by the {{DNB}} - I'm trying to create Wikisource versions of all the DNB articles needed to reference articles here. But that template seems to be misleading in this case: the dates are wrong, and in fact the DNB article on Bullard dates only from 1986. So there is an issue here, and really some rewriting needs to go on. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. 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").
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) 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Craigy144! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 31 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Hello. We regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Henry Curtis-Bennett appears to be an unusably close copy from Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 January 12), and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Henry Curtis-Bennett with a link to where we can find that note.
Reader Bullard and George Cockburn (British Army officer) have been blanked and listed for the same concerns. These three articles were listed at the copyright problems board for investigation by a concerned contributor. As I do not have access to the source myself, I asked another contributor to compare two of them to the sources, and he agreed that they were unusably close paraphrases of the original. I have also reviewed Hylton Castle (steamship), and it seems to be an unusably close paraphrase of the book source now linked from the front. I will list it at the copyright problems board as well. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the extent of the issue and the time it goes back - you received warnings for similar mis-attribution of ODNB content in 2008, including a complaint by an author, and since you have not been active in the meantime, you are hereby blocked for repeated violations of our copyright policies, in accordance to the precautionary principle we apply on such matters, until you do react to the above situation.
Further, I will have to raise this situation to AN/I given your status as an admin. I will link back to the AN/I thread after it is created. MLauba (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus at the discussion on the administrators' noticeboard that your systematic violations of copyright policy are not compatible with your status as an administrator. Rather than summon the mob with pitchforks and burning torches, I have asked the arbitration committee to review this, I believe that they should be able to come to a suitably dispassionate judgment. I hope this is acceptable to you. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that voting is underway on a motion for you to be temporarily desysopped until you provide the Arbitration Committee with a satisfactory explanation for the actions which brought about this request for a case. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this as administrators are not expected to be perfect though they are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment or sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with this trusted role and administrators who repeatedly engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.
Summary of evidence:
(i) Craigy144 has repeatedly posted text and images which do not fully comply with the relevant policies.
(ii) Craigy144's actions have received much comment but he/she has failed to respond to it.
(iii) Craigy144 has not so far responded to this Request for Arbitration nor provided an explanation for his/her conduct.
Remedy:
Craigy144 is temporarily desysopped until such time as he/she provides the committee with a satisfactory explanation of his/her conduct.
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK). 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").
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) 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is David Bowes-Lyon. 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/David Bowes-Lyon. 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) 01:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Ernst Aug-3rd Cumber.png
Thank you for uploading File:Ernst Aug-3rd Cumber.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thank you for uploading File:Stafford-coa.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thank you for uploading File:Maud.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thank you for uploading File:G6&EGarter.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thank you for uploading File:EDF-World.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thank you for uploading File:Torbay-coa.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
\(caint) 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
, see Talk:Katherine Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield for eventual comments about the article. Well done!MrPrada 04:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Buckthroneroom.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).
File:Hyltoncastleccc33.jpg File:Hyltoncastleddd44.jpg 
Done, please read WP:ACC/G for information on how to use the tool --Chris 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_coa.png){kind=link}
_coa.png){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:Garneau&Queen.png. 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).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Hello Craigy144! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 31 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
