User talk:Rodolph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia.

Just a tip, to create a refferal to another item use #REDIRECT [[<targetarticlename>]] instead of "see <tragetarticlename>".

The above synatx allows the MediaWiki software to refer searches and lookups auto-magicaly:-)

Thanks for the contribution though :-)

ShakespeareFan00 14:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Rodolph, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  JRawle (Talk) 22:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

PS do take a look at the pages on writing wiki code, and on style of articles. It isn't necessary to end lines with an HTML <br /> tag!

[edit] George Jellicoe, 2nd Earl Jellicoe

Please do not restore your version of the article again. Additional facts added to articles are most welcome, but do take some time to look at some other articles on Wikipedia and try to write in the usual style of the site. Articles aren't supposed to be list of facts, but should be written as paragraphs. I tried to retain all of the content you had added (with the exception of the list of titles, which belongs on the Earl Jellicoe page) so there is no need to change the article unless you have something to add. JRawle (Talk) 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have made some good contributions and extended the article quite a bit, but I'm still not happy with the style of parts of the article. We shouldn't try to reproduce DodOnline or a biographical dictionary, so I don't think "Clubs" is a suitable heading. And I still don't quite like the "Honours" section - this could do with some wikilinks and proper formatting (maybe bullets).

I've removed the inherited titles from the honours section as this is not included in other articles and should be discussed in the title article. I'm dubious about some of the others, I'm not sure Earl~ Day constitutes the sort of honour that wiki envisaged with the inclusion of such sections in amongst peerages and military decorations Alci12 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the honours section is to cover honours given to the individual. As I indicated before no other peerage article includes a list of each and ever inherited title, that is in large measure the purpose of the title article to save this repeat. See any of the other similar articles for layout Gerald_Cavendish_Grosvenor John_Spencer-Churchill,_11th_Duke_of_Marlborough Articles are not supposed to exist in a vacuum alone. I have reversed this change. In large measure wiki replies standard forms for articles so we have a manual of style and various project pages to try to ensure we all work in the same way. You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage helpful. Alci12 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but he is the holder of those extra and subsiderary titles. They may be hereditary, but they belong with the present holder as much as anything he may have earned himself. The subject may be commonly known only by the highest one, but nonetheless it is a shame, even a travesty to separate them. They should be somewhere on the face of that article, I thought the most innocuous place was where I've put them. Maybe you don't believe in the hereditary principle, in which case I cannot argue, but if you do they should be spared, please.
It's not to do with belief but article structure. We have an article about each title or collection of titles then where they justify inclusion articles about various holders of such titles. Other than where they are known by one of their lesser titles (eg the heir apparent and his heir who may be known for decades by courtesy titles, which must be mentioned) the fact they have 16 others on succession is not the point of their personal article and clutters it up if they have say 9 to mention, but it's absolutely right to cover in full detail in the title article. See this done at Duke_of_Hamilton and Douglas_Douglas-Hamilton,_14th_Duke_of_Hamilton We have a standard article format and it's quite important to try to work with that format, rather than do what ever we personally like, to keep a uniform structure. Do look at other articles to see they broadly conform. Looking at the article in question it does need a titles/styles section per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage see John_Scott,_9th_Duke_of_Buccleuch Alci12 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks. I know what you mean. With this case the creations were fresh within the life of the subject, who was known by one of them and in some biogs. (not just Dod) he or others included them all, and he persisted in including Southampton as part of his new life peerage when he had to choose one in 1999. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but may return to it anon...
The Life peerage is fine to mention in both the honours section (see the examples I gave for the standard format of that section in a list) and in the body of the article as it's 'new' to him as an individual. The mention of the courtesy viscountcy in the body of the article is correct as he used it from 25-35 and the Earldom as he is known by it is now obviously there. What's not needed in his personal article is the other viscountcy. If you have questions or suggestions you can always raise them at project peerage where these issues are discussed. We try to work though a logical way to handle formats and problems. Alci12 18:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask what editor you use as I've never seen <br /> tags used before, but I've just noticed that they have extended the interface, and there is a button to add them! This seems crazy to me, as it's very rare that you need to tweak the layout using HTML mark-up. Please use a blank line (and one blank line) only to separate paragraphs. Thanks again for your contributions, JRawle (Talk) 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

good work Rawle! Thanks for your guidance.

[edit] Jerome, 2nd Count de Salis

Please don't remove clean up tags, before the article has been cleaned up. Thanks and greetings ~~ Phoe talk 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Philip Russell Rendel Dunne

Hi, thanks for starting this article, but I think you are violating copyright. We can and shall use sources to write articles, however we may not copy longer text statements or whole texts. I recommend you therefore to rewrite the article since otherwise it can be that it will be deleted (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems). Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 10:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] License tagging for Image:Rodolphe Salis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rodolphe Salis.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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:

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. 13:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RE. COPYRIGHT ....I HAVE ADDED INFO, IN FORM OF LINKS TO ORIGINAL FRENCH AND GERMAN SITES.

[edit] George III

I answered you on my talk page, here by Snowolf (talk) on 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes

I'd prefer that we not try to add succession boxes for the possession of manors, simply because they'd become way too profuse to keep up with. As someone who spends a lot of time arranging succession boxes, I worry that adding succession boxes for too many things will result in people attacking the whole concept of succession boxes and trying to get them removed, because they dislike having a huge chunk of tables at the end of the article that may overshadow its actual content. Given the vast number of manors in the British Isles (most of which have no articles describing them), I think adding succession boxes for them is excessive. If you'd like to solicit more opinions, Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization is a good place to look. Choess 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. That seems fair, in that I only added my succession boxes (to a four hundred year long descent of a specific place and quite large estate) after finding that many of the 'approved' succession boxes seemed rather questionable or spurious themselves, useful all the same, that's why I added mine, (but I won't re-install them)... best wishes, Rodolph 10:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Fane

Hi, according to the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes we don't use honorifics in the opening of articles, so please stop adding it to George Fane. Thanks ~~ Phoe talk 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] WRT Image:Queen's Speech 2001.jpg

If that was taken from the BBC, I strongly suspect that they own the copyright to their broadcast and that the pic is then copyrighted by them regardless. 68.39.174.238 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titles

If you want to be sure about a title check the London Gazette for the date in question and then look at only that part before the comma (bold below) If the intent had been to include an X of Y title the comma would be missing and usually a repeat of the Y form before the county. Alci12 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"THE Queen has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, granting the dignity of a Baron of the said United Kingdom unto the Right Honourable Sir Henry Brougham Loch, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Baron Loch, of Drylaw, in the county of Midlothian."

Compare with

"The QUEEN (has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 12th instant, (to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon Miss Elaine Frances Burton, by the name, style and title of BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY, of Coventry in the County of Warwick."

Whereas, probably the best authority on the peerage, G. E. Cokayne, etal, clearly have it Loch of Drylaw, not Loch, of Drylaw!! Rodolph 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The LG is the official announcement of the state as to the title - other than the LP there is no better authority - Cokaynes is just a commercial publication Alci12 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with your grim dismissal. GEC was undoubtedly a labour of LOVE not just a commercial publication. Anyway I'll check, thanks, xx. Rodolph 11:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, GEC is in fact well known for his mistakes in this regard, as the CP pretty much systematically conflated actual titles and territorial designations (resulting in horrific renderings like "Earl of Leicester of Holkham" and "Baron Dufferin and Claneboye of Ballyleidy and Killyleagh"). (The mistake is compounded by Burke's slavishly copying these mistakes.) Proteus (Talk) 13:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I only have access to Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage but there is no doubt that Alci12 and Proteus are correct. The title of the peerage was Baron Loch, of Drylaw. Tryde 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
is there not perhaps a confusion between common useage and actual technical title? Viz. Lord Montagu of Beaulieu would most likely only be known as Lord Montagu but for the plethora of other Lords Montagu. Similarly the Lords Howard de Walden were commonly known as such only because they were forced to on account of there being many other Lords Howard. The Lords Loch being reticent types and being the only ennobled users of the name Loch had no need for the perhaps pompous sounding extra OF DRYLAW tacked on, so would have quietly dropped it, hence its absense from Debrett & Burke, which as ALCI12 rather dismissively pointed out about G.E.C. are only commercial publications, but which, unlike GEC, rely most heavily on information given them by the subjects of each entry. I do, incidently, know the importance of the placement of the comma, but as I wrote elsewhere today that August 1895 Lords Journal clearly has it 'Baron Loch of Drylaw, in our county of Midlothian. I do not insist that I am right and you wrong, but there is, I feel, still remaining doubt Rodolph 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
We're not making reference to common usage. We're referring to the official announcement of the creation of the peerage in the London Gazette. The House of Lords journal is obviously mistaken (which is hardly a unique occurrence — I could find you dozens of mistakes therin if you'd like). Proteus (Talk) 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Rodolph, the way we try to deal with issues when there is contradictory infomation from different sources is try assess the sources by which is most authoritative and trustworthy. I'd suggest, and others may choose to broadly agree or not, that the hierarchy for titles is something like: The letters patent creating the title, a writ of summons to parliament, the roll of the peerage, the London Gazette (or supplement) detailing the LP, an act of parliament / royal proclamation / warrant or statutory instrument specifically naming the peer, Hansard, the various commercial publications about the peerage and so on. So while I'm perfectly happy to agree peers are sometimes wrong in their use of their title or shorten the form in use; where we have the appropriate sources we can I think be most accurate by trusting the sources most likely to be authoritative about that use on wiki Alci12 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earl Jellicoe

I removed the picture because it showed a tiny model of the house with a snowman in front of it... Tryde 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC) yes, I know it is a model with a Christmas cake's snowman in front of it, but why did you remove it? Rodolph 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heading of articles

I am sorry if you do not like this, but Wikipedia has some guidelines and this is included (you can read the whole text at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)). If there really are two persons with the same name, then they are surely different by her life data or her professions, what usually always is in the introduction, too (see William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1468 creation) and William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke (1551 creation) for example). ~~ Phoe talk 16:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Queen's Speech 2001.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen's Speech 2001.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 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. William Avery 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castle

I noticed your edit at Fingask Castle. If you have an interest in castles, you may wish to vote at WP:ACID to improve the Castle article. It is going to fail its nomination today if we do not get two more votes soon. Please contribute!

Thanks. --Grimhelm 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heello

Hello Rodolpho I see you added info to Henry Jerome de Salis about the Blossets- I have created a page on the first Blosset to come to Britain/Ireland here Salomon Blosset de Loche

Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 04:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gustv, great work. Thanks for telling me about it.Rodolph
Are you able to tell me the source that describes the father of Julia Henrietta (Harriet) Blosset as Salomon de Blosset de Loche? I believe he was commonly known as Solomon Stephen Blosset- I am not entirely certain he inherited the Seigneurie of Loche as I think perhaps that Seigneuries were similar to an English Lord of the Manor so would pass down through property rather than blood (I imagine the French property of the Blossets would have been confiscated), Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gustav, see this link for a fine painting of Selina Grote/Peckwell:
www.richard-green.com/DesktopDefault. aspx?tabid=6&tabindex=5&objectid=1341
The Solomon Blosset info came from the Trinity College Library, Cambridge, UK. Amongst the Mayor papers are some of those of the Blosset's, however, the web site seems to be not working properly tonight/this year, so I can't give you a link, or check...Other info/confirmation came from an old Joseph Banks biog.Rodolph
try: http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0016%2FMAYOR

Rodolph 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

Heya, you don't need to insert a <br> to divide two sections, a white line for this is sufficient and will in addition not confuse other users either. Greetings and Happy Easter ~~ Phoe talk 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) ~~

[edit] License tagging for Image:JellicoeSkiing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JellicoeSkiing.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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:

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. 02:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Jellicoe

Hi again Rodolpho can I ask whether you are related to George as I am (very distantly) related myself? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

cool, how are you related? I'm not related by blood, but was a friend.Rodolph 19:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fingask Castle

Hi Rodolph, do you think maybe there are a few too many pictures on this page- we don't want it ending up like a scrapbook do we? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rodolph do you mind if I move a few pics- maybe we could use them in other articles i.e. collage, silhouette, teapot. Also do you have permission from the people in this photo to use their image in Wikipedia Image:24February2007Reeling.jpg? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think there might be copyright issues with this image unless you have asked the artist to release their work into the public domain Image:FingaskTeaMungoMcCosh2006.jpg? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Picture desk or scapbook? Is a picture worth 1,000 words? All pictures have permission and are relevant, in that they are of Fingask, to the page. (Several where taken or made by me). Do please use them elsewhere. Are you Phoe re-born? (McCosh has given permission).
Best wishes, Rodolph 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rodolph I think the problem is as I understand it you are releasing the image into ther public domain i.e. it can be freely copied reproduced published and commercially exploited without your permission or Mungo McCosh's and Steve Abbott's permission. Are you are certain that the artists are happy with that? Re: this photo Image:24February2007Reeling.jpg are these the owners of the castle- if so can you label them? I think this collage may also violate copyright Image:PavilionCollageJune2006.jpg as it possibly contains copyright images/trademarks? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
McCosh & Abbott both gave permission, as did R. de Salis. The reelers are not the owners, but both agreed to be thus shown at a recent party given there. The collage I made myself. It may infringe copyright, but does'nt everything!Rodolph 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi R I think Wikipedia has had to be careful about violating copyright since some bad publicity they had. When you say the artists gave permission did you ask them to put their pictures on Wikipedia or did you explain to them the consequences that will no longer really own their image? My connection to Jellicoe is through his mother's family- we are not exactly closely related though as our common ancestor died in 1694! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Abbott/Thackeray/Salis/McCosh are all aware. Though, I will remind McCosh. I wonder who was the ancestor who died in 1694?Rodolph 22:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rodolph. I agree that there are too many images on Fingask Castle. Copyright aside, some of them are simply not relevant. I don't see how pictures of Christmas cards or revelling can be of any use to people trying to learn about Fingask Castle itself.

If you have a large number of pictures, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons, which is designed as an image directory. You can make a page there called Fingask Castle, put all your images on it in the same way, and then link to the Commons page from the Wikipedia page using {{commons|Fingask Castle}}. That way you can keep all the images, but the main article is much less cluttered. Let me know if you need any help.

Lastly, you may want to stop by WikiProject Scottish Castles if you are interested in contributing more on this topic. Thanks, Edward Waverley 09:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Edward, thank you for your kind words, and info about wiki commons.
Yes, I would like by the end of next week to have re-arranged the images and made them more cognate and less cluttered. I'll look at wiki commons too, though it might take longer as it seems quite obscure.
The pictures of recently made art inspired by Fingask and people revelling ARE relevant, I think, because they show that the place is alive, and that fun can be present; and that unlike some castles/country houses contemporary unfettered pleasure and novelty is an ongoing possibility. The castle is more than just the history of its stones. Also, as the whole house and garden is available for hire it shows what is possible to the people now.Rodolph 13:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:TopiaryCloseUpFingask.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:FingaskTopiaryCloseUp.jpg. The copy called Image:FingaskTopiaryCloseUp.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SirStuartdetail.jpg

Hi. Who was the artist, and where is the painting held?

I have applied it to a new article: Royal Medical Society.

Ta in advance. --Mais oui! 08:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your message...great re-use! The picture you've got is a detail of a (c1747-1767) portrait of Dr. Stuart Threipland, after the Battle of Culloden, by William Delacour (1700-1768), French born painter who was the first master of the Trustees' Academy in Edinburgh in the 1760s. This image was copied from an old copy of the original, c/o National Galleries of Scotland (Duff House)(?).Rodolph 10:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranee of Sarawak

Well done on the article. Needs some formatting though. --Counter-revolutionary 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastnor

Hi Rodolph- can I ask how you calculated the equivalent figure for £85000 - (I get slightly different results). Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

my maths might be completely wrong, but I seem to remember being told and reading that the multiplier for comparitive value between C18th and c1920 and c1998 was between x60 and x100. This works for some things, but clearly recent rampant UK (house price) inflation (a house sold in 2007 might easily sell for well over x200 what it was bought for in 1946) means that the equivalent figure for Eastnor castle is difficult to pin.Rodolph 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying sooner, I found these two useful tools at Pound sterling-
If you calculate using the purchasing power from 1810 to 1830 £85,000 goes to £63,231 from 1810 to 1830. Then, if you put that value into the five ways calculator, you get a range of £4.2 million for retail price index (purchasing power), £5.4 million for GDP deflator, up to £46.9 million for average earnings, £63.3 million for per capita GDP, and £160 million for GDP. I don't fully understand what that all means but I suppose its to do with (i) how many other people had similar amounts of money i.e. they were less rich people back then so an amount would actually seem vastly greater even though it may only be able to buy a limited numbers of loaves of bread! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Great work! Thank you. (See new link to Trinity College re. your first question Blossets, higher up the page). Rodolph 17:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jarvis image

Hello. It was pointlessly confusing having a photograph captioned as being of Jarvis when there were two similar-looking people in it, and however humorous you found the lookalike, he isn't notable enough to merit actual mention in the article. Cropping the article made more sense than expanding the caption. --McGeddon 22:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Reunov&Leo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Reunov&Leo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TidcombeModel.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:TidcombeModel.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Baghdad.JPG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Baghdad.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Bushcastle.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bushcastle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

its not exactly a photo to be that proud of is it? Would anyone really bother to pursue someone for its copyright?Rodolph 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:LordofAdmiralty.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:LordofAdmiralty.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.

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 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:JellicoeinBaghdad1980s.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JellicoeinBaghdad1980s.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.

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 23:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 23:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PashaNikAksenovPantherHouseMountPleasant2003.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PashaNikAksenovPantherHouseMountPleasant2003.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe

I notice that you uploaded a picture of Jellicoe (- a cigarette card?) with the title 'Amiralissime' on it. You have put this title in the image caption box. Unless Jellico has an honourary title from a foreign navy this should read Admiral to avoid confusion. Please do not use other languages in this way on wikipedia. --maxrspct ping me 12:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I've qualified your correction. He was known widely as Amiralissime, so it is relevant, one thinks. Rodolph 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Rodolph, actually Amiralissime is the superlative of French Amiral, see http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/-issime . Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gustav, nice to read you again. Yes, thank you very much!Rodolph 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hullo

I've just been reading through some articles you've contributed to, in particular those on the Counts de Salis, I presume you're a member of the family. I'd be interested to know some more about their Irish connection (when did the estates at Armagh leave the family, &c.), if you had any information. I can be reached on my talk-page or by e-mail (linked to my account). Best wishes, --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your edits to We (novel)

Hi, I reverted your edits because they essentially replaced the ISBN with exlinks to Random House, which is a commercial site (see WP:EXTERNAL). I also removed the location, since the ISBN is the same for the US and UK editions.

There is a way to change ISBN links to point to the URL of your choice, instead of Wikipedia:Book sources, by pasting the code from User:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js into User:Rodolph/monobook.js.

--Jtir (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

But why remove (vandalise?) the helpfull links to a description of the latest translation? You imply that commerce is bad, what's wrong with commerce? Don't you find ISBNs ugly and unneccessary, even misleading?Rodolph (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
ISBNs are widely accepted and supported at WP and I find them essential for identifying books and linking to them. (I use the tool described above for the latter.) These pages have much more on ISBNs at WP:
What happens when you click on an ISBN? E.g. ISBN 0-8129-7462-X (It should be a link.)
As for the exlinks, they were about half blurbs and some of those cannot possibly refer to the Randall translation (e.g. Orwell who died in 1950). Most of the rest of the content is already on WP. Commercial exlinks are fine when there is no substitute.
BTW, vandals don't usually leave msgs on talk pages explaining their "edits" and citing guidelines.
--Jtir (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
How did you come across the article? --Jtir (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, obviously not a 'vandal', its just that I learnt to use the invective from a German (sinc ex-Wiki) who misused the term to describe anyone (me) who removed their precious material or merely re-inserted their own as VANDAL. But my point is that when you click on that 'ISBN' number it takes one nowhere but a waste of time page really only of interest for numerologists.
Whereas the 'exlinks' (and interesting publisher information) I had inserted lead explicitly to an useful and educative description of 'we' Randall's translation of it. The article I found because I was interested in Vintage classics/Randall's new translation. Rodolph (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I assumed that you were seeking to add useful information. The ISBN links are intended to lead readers to more info in a neutral way.
Could you confirm that when you click on this link, that you see a page similar to Wikipedia:Book sources? If not, there may be something wrong, and we will need to get help. If so, you can scroll through the TOC, looking for a location. Personally, I prefer amazon.com, which is near the end in the Individual online booksellers section. This user interface for looking up books is cumbersome IMO, so that is why I was referring you to User:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js.
BTW, the article lists some reviews: We (novel)#Reviews. Can you suggest more?
--Jtir (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks, but i still don't see how an ISBN is usefull. For example on the Walter Benjamin page there is a list of books with ISBNs but with hardly any dates of publication given. I click on the ISBN and I'm taken to a list of world-wide libraries, but how does that help? Rodolph (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The first link under Online databases, which is WorldCat, has all 16 titles that are listed under Primary literature. Some of the results show a cover image too. That's very helpful, IMO. --Jtir (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If you click on the "Find this book" link, you will be taken immediately to the record for the ISBN. --Jtir (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For example: The arcades project. Clicking on Cite this Item gives a list of already formatted citations for this item, one of which can be copied into the article. --Jtir (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of John Charles Dodson, 3rd Baron Monk Bretton

A tag has been placed on John Charles Dodson, 3rd Baron Monk Bretton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ARE you completely wacko? Delete? Why? See article for explanation. Rodolph (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Castleold.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Castleold.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.

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 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Coldstreamer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coldstreamer.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.

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 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks a lots, I mean that sarcastically. Yes wacko- Wiki automatic vandal, -that picture was fine and I had changed the Tag!!!Rodolph (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Wintour edit

Do you have a source on that? Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, sorry, will add it, Brian Masters, Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire, Hamish Hamilton, 1981, page 298-299.Rodolph (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I moved up into the article text and put it into {{cite book}}. Do you think you could add a short quote from the relevant section in the quote= section of the citation template to make it a stronger reference? (I can't verify it with a copy of the book so that would help) Also the ISBN and publisher location, too.

This is interesting to know ... I didn't know she had any aristocratic ancestors. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Masters has also written wonderful books about the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, and British Dukes. His info re. Anna Wintour & the Fosters will have come mostly from Burke's, one thinks.Rodolph (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:George_Jellicoe.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:George_Jellicoe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bateman's 'Great Landowners'

The category that you created six weeks ago has been nominated for deletion. I am suggesting renaming. You may wish to participate in the debate. I would also suggest that you create a "main article" on the source book, if only comprising the text that you have placed at the head of the category, but better still it should give rather mnore detail of the source work, whcih I think deoends on a survey of landownership done in the 1870s, which revealed that landownership was even more concentrated than any one had imagined. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK rename as suggested. Bateman's Great Landowners. Thanks for the warning. I can't tell you how much I HATE and LOATH the way Wikipedia is so full of misplaced Deletion. Rodolph (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have re-named the dcategory. It is now -Bateman's 'Great Landowners' (1883)-.Rodolph (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:CasaBattistaHall.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Rodolph!
We thank you for uploading Image:CasaBattistaHall.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)