User talk:Evadb/Archive4May2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives Archive 1 (24-02-06–5-05-06) Archive 2 (6-05-06–18-05-06) Archive 3 (19-05-06–10-11-06) Archive 4 (10-11-06–12-02-07) Current Talk (from 12-02-07)

Contents 1 Bruno Bernard Heim 2 Anthony Wagner 3 Order of St John 4 Scottish Heraldry 5 John Brooke-Little 6 Richmond Herald 7 Hon. Sir George Rothe Bellew 8 Empty category 9 Images of Orders 10 Assuming royal arms 11 Calvinist confederacy 12 Image copyright problem with Image:American College of Heraldry.jpg 13 Keep up the good work! 14 Signature 15 RE: Image:Peter Gwynn-Jones coa.png 16 License tagging for Image:Beaumont Extraordinary Badge.jpg 17 Welcome to Esperanza! 18 Spoiler

[edit] Bruno Bernard Heim

Thanks for creating the nice article on Bruno Bernard Heim! --EncycloPetey 08:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Evadb 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Wagner

I believe there's a serious copyright problem with the Anthony Wagner article, as it appears to have been taken almost word-for-word from the obituary in the Independent, to which you include a link. --Michael K. Smith 02:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I was using the obit as a base for writing the article, but other things have come up and I haven't been able to supplement/add other materials. Evadb 07:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of St John

First explain me what is the reasoning for its inclusion in the category for British orders. I hope you are aware of the Russian tradition of the Knights Hospitaller. Actually, it's hard to mention a high-profile Russian nobleman active at the turn of the 19th century who was not awarded with this order. As a sidenote, the system of Russian Imperial awards also included the Polish orders, like the Order of the White Eagle and Order of Saint Stanislaus. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Heraldry

Thanks for your words of encouragement (and for fixing a few of my typos!). I started the Lord Lyon template after getting sick of having to flick back to Court of the Lord Lyon or your list of Offices to see whether a title was a herald or a pursuivant. I was planning to add this template to the relevant articles after I'd got rid of all the red links. Dr pda 23:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now added the template to the articles of the Scottish officers of arms. Thanks for creating the rest of the articles, and for the barnstar! Dr pda 15:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Brooke-Little

You'll turn my head with such flattery! As it happens, the officers of arms are an area about which I know little. —Tamfang 17:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richmond Herald

Links must correspond to articles. Directories such as the CoA main page only serve to confuse the reader. Your choice would be best for the CoA article, not the Richmond Herald. Try Occam's Razor. IP Address 07:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The page I linked to has all the info a casual observer would need to find out about the Richmond Herald. When one visits the link, they expect to directly find info on the Richmond Herald. They are not supposed to have to go digging throughout the entire website. You should know this. IP Address 07:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but that's just the way the Wikipedia is set up. Either go with the flow, or find somewhere else to make your own world, with your own customs to follow. IP Address 07:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think your attitudes are that of intentional Naivety according to Ignoratio elenchi. I'm upset because this is more or less the second time within a couple of hours I've dealt with it. IP Address 08:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. IP Address 08:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave you a hard time. That was not my intention. IP Address 08:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Readers are to be guided to the direct link which has to do with Wikipedia articles. That other articles have not had their external links standardised means, that they are in error. IP Address 08:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You still fail to see that we are supposed to direct link from Wikipedia to the very webpages that reference the article titles?! IP Address 08:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The main page of that website does not reference Richmond Herald; it is a mere directory of info, which may lead you on a further path to find the page that discusses Richmond Herald. We're supposed to make "digging" easier and less time consuming, than we as editors do. IP Address 08:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What would be a lot more helpful, is to avoid plagiarism and find a multitude of sources which vary and enrich the language used to discuss the article. The more info the merrier, specifically about Richmond Herald--not the College of Arms--which is a webpage already reference in the College of Arms article. IP Address 08:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point in double-referencing. That only clutters the article. It is plainly apparent, that you refuse to consider the fact that you may have to do work to clean up your own mess. Now, you wish to spread more of that mess around as a "standard". Don't pretend you weren't editing the article earlier under your own IP address, to hide your activities and subvert a WP:3RR. You know what you were doing and trying to get your way--the wrong way! Don't game the system! IP Address 08:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should quit these games? IP Address 08:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you really are a child, with no knowledge of right and wrong? If so, then I should pity instead of raise my voice. IP Address 08:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you be so two-faced like this? You brought it onto yourself, by thinking you could hide your actions! I do not believe that you have a self esteem big enough to accept when you've made a mistake. That's kind of dangerous, don't you think? No, you can't fool me. IP Address 08:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You've failed to learn from the last time; still making snide remarks and pretending to not know what is discussed. You have everything to know, from what is already written here in this section of your discussion page. It's free advice, but you're quite headstrong. IP Address 09:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not my fault that you refuse to pay attention. I will not repeat myself again. Don't play charades and feign innocence. Grow up. We all make mistakes--even you. IP Address 09:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who says he doesn't want to be bothered, but keeps coming back for more. This is clearly a game you enjoy. I'm telling you straight up, that you have to make amends on this "standard" you've invented, because it has no place in the Wikipedia's already established standards. You can't make the Wikipedia bend to your will--that includes those like me who patrol the articles for vandalism, trollery and even badly formatted articles. They all need to be fixed, in order to be appropriate for the Wikipedia and not a hinderance for our readers. IP Address 09:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want me to leave you alone, you have to stop Playing God with the Wikipedia. You edited all of these armorial articles to fit your concept of a standard, in your own mind's eye. IP Address 09:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You still don't understand how to stop an uncomfortable conversation. Own up to your mistakes and misdeeds and/or commit yourself to silence and reflect on what has occurred. You pursued this article in a way as to continue the issue, so it hardly seems like your issues will go away again in one months' time. If I (or others) don't go about fixing all your mistakes, you will conclude that there is nothing wrong. I've already told you that what you've done is wrong, but you pretend you haven't read my words and ask for further explanation. You just avoid facing facts. IP Address 09:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If we cross paths again and it is because of your obstinance, then I will most certainly involve myself for the sake of the Wikipedia. Now if you don't want me to reply, send no reply for me to reply to. IP Address 09:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There you go again, refusing to heed that advice. I should have told you, that attempts to charm and flatter me will not "buy me off". It is obviously lost upon you, this cause of formatting appropriately per wiki-standards. You've got three strikes and so, you're out. No more will I be patiently lenient with you. You think that just because you join some elite group like the CVU, that anything you do will be safe and others will be your apologists when you are in trouble. I suggest you back off now, before more damage is done. Just because you are a "teacher", doesn't mean that everything you do is right--or you know everything. I see you've met User:Mel Etitis. IP Address 09:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep flouting wiki-conventions. I'm sure it will get you somewhere. IP Address 10:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you keep your problems limited to one article at a time? IP Address 10:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not afford random people a whole month of playing stupid. Make no mistake--this is something caused by your own behaviour and not merely an appellation of my devising. IP Address 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hon. Sir George Rothe Bellew

We seem to have finally decided after repeated bun fights not to include styles (ie the Hon) in the inline though they can be mentioned in the body of the article or as some do in a section on styles etc. Secondly, though not necessary for the article, I think he or his brothers must have sought a warrant of precedence at some point - as he was not entitled by right to the Hon style as he father was never a baron - dying two years prior to his elder brother. I can't see such a warrant though so there is an error in my memory/understanding or the site I checked. You've clearly put in a huge amount of efford into the article though so keep up the good work. Alci12 18:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Such an 'order and declaration' indeed appears in the London Gazette for November 5, 1935 granting the brothers and sisters of Edward Bellew, 5th Baron Bellew "the same title, rank, place, preeminence and precedence as would have been due to them if their late father, Richard Eustace Bellew (commonly called the Honourable Richard Eustace Bellew) had survived his brother, George Leopold Bryan, Baron Bellew, and had thereby succeeded to the title and dignity of Baron Bellew." Dr pda 21:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well as I thought the site i'd checked didn't have that entry, the gazette can be a bit slow to hunt through so I hadn't checked that first - I was sure an entry must exist. As I said we can add that he obtained it to the wiki entry it just depends if general users think that interesting enoughAlci12 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empty category

Hi there. I've been going through Special:Uncategorizedcategories, and I noticed you recently removed the category Arms-granting bodies from all of its parent categories, leaving it an orphan. I've deleted the now-unused category, but in the future, can you please nominate unneeded categories for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion or request that they be speedy deleted using the {{db}} template, whichever is appropriate? Thanks, SCZenz 22:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Orders

Hi there,

I notice that you have been adding public domain images of certain orders such as Image:Imperial Order of the Crown of India Insignia.JPG. Since these images are in the public domain, might I suggest that you upload them to the wikipedia commons rather than directly to wikipedia ? Doing that is just like uploading an image to wikipedia (you will need to create a new account, but its just the same as creating an account on wikipedia), and when you upload an image, simply add it to Category:British Honours System, and we can create a pretty good database of free use images that are easy to locate and can be used on all wiki pages (when you upload an image to the commons you can automatically use it on wikipieda, it doesnt have to be uploaded seperately).

thanks for you consideration and all your work

Dowew 23:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming royal arms

If one is descended from legitimate royal lines, does that entitle them to use a defaced version of the royal arms without penalty? Does it really matter if the dynasty is no longer around to contest another's usage of the arms? For instance, my ancestors through several female lines have been hereditary rulers of all the UK composite countries--just not all at once, of course. I know for certain that my ancestors used Capetian lilies, Richard the Lionheart's three leopards, William the Lion's lion rampant and more. But there is the point of the Irish harp, when I know the Celtic Irish monarchs did not use arms. Could I therefore, fashion my own versions? I really don't need permission from the College of Arms, or do I when concerning other nations such as France? What about Crusader states and defunct countries or monarchies? That would make myself independent of armorial jurisdiction in respect of those entities, correct? IP Address 10:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this belated reply. I don't see how I could possibly find anything in the direct male line; it's all through marital alliances. I think that when certain countries or aristocracies don't exist anymore, there aren't restrictions for marrying lesser families of property--the landed gentry, for instance. Overall, this type of thing has more sentimental value, than a real one...doesn't it? IP Address 10:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's hope. What about using the Plantagent arms (defaced, of course), because I am descended from them (by heiresses) and George III abolished their statuatory (official) usage? Does the problem of using the French arms, stem from Canada's own royal arms? Is there anything against using civic arms, which have had ducal or other quasi-national peerage titles attached to them in the past? For instance, could I use a form of arms for the Duchies of Lancaster/Brittany/Normandy/Aquitaine etc--if I prove descent? Nobody can "copyright" or "patent" defunct titles and/or arms, correct? Isn't this kind of a community property, in the public domain? There are enough widespread descendents to make it so, which is why I find it hard to see such things put on a restricted list. In point of fact, I would not claim to own the specific arms quartered (France or England, etc.) but merely just own my specific design of arms (a creative spin-using correct armorial practices, of course). That is considered reasonable, right? What about long gaps of various ancestors who did not own or bear arms (but have biological descent)--is that the chief bar to using arms in the first place? Of course, none of this matters if I don't make any legal claims in such matter...right? There are only repercussions for those who assume somebody else's arms and perpetuate fraudulence, correct? IP Address 11:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your knowledge in the matter of heraldry is very helpful. Just one last questionable issue: My mother's family comes from a divergent line of Anglo-Irish baronets who lived in Ulster (the Protestant Ascendancy). My mother's father's line does not descend from the title-holders, but are parallel descendents of a mutual ancestor shared between them (a younger son)--before the title was granted and when more or less the whole family was living back in Bristol. The grant of baronet was made in Stuart England and my ancestors on this side went to the American colonies. There is now an abeyance for claims to become the next baronet for inheritance. Could my American relatives (of the same surname) successfully petition for at least recognition of their rightful connexions? Would the default be a recognition of property, or title? I know Americans aren't supposed to bear titles, but there are several Americans with a knighthood and this is obviously not a peerage-related issue. IP Address 11:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the distinction is between diplomatic bribery and the inheritance of family estates/titles/honours. Thank you very much. I see that Wikipedia (and the general public) can gain very much from you, at least in regards to heraldry. IP Address 11:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I never doubted your knowledge about the subject matter, just wiki-formatting. I suspect that there is something for both of us to gain from our mutual experience. IP Address 11:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinist confederacy

If you have a moment, please lend your thoughts to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvinist confederacy. --Flex 01:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:American College of Heraldry.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:American College of Heraldry.jpg. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr Robot. Problem fixed.--Evadb 20:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your fine and systematic work on biographies of officers of arms and other heraldists. Chelseaboy 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

You can customise your signature at the Special:Preferences page. Most people probably do what I did — steal someone else's, and then play around with it until it's what they want. Try Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages for tips on customising. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That looks fine. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Image:Peter Gwynn-Jones coa.png

The copyright info is on the description page, why the request for deletion? Craigy (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I've used this tag because...it's a coat of arms. I wouldn't see a use for it if it didn't justify the copyright and if it didn't, then I suggest all the other images under this template be reviewed too. What more information about the image are you're looking for exactly? Craigy (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've used {{Fair use in|}} as there's a desctiption of his arms on Peter Gwynn-Jones, so it's not like it's just been plonked on the page. Would this be ok? Thanks Craigy (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Beaumont Extraordinary Badge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beaumont Extraordinary Badge.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Problem solved.--Eva ^db 08:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Esperanza!

[edit] Spoiler

Hello. Thanks for your comment. I'm happy to see people serious about this. I appreciate your keep vote and your reason for voting so. Thank you again (from one Esperanzan to another) for your imput. Chuck 09:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, 4AM...studying for the finals (fun!). If you ever need another Wikipedian for help on an issue or support for something, let me know. Guess it's a good time to go to bed. Chuck 09:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)