User talk:Astrotrain

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia.

It's always worth checking if an article already exists before writing a new one. I can see you put some effort into researching and writing Falkland Isles, but we already have articles at Falkland Islands and Falklands War which cover the subjects you were adressign in that page. I have made Falkland Isles a Wikipedia:Redirect to Falkland Islands. Don't worry, your edits at Falkland Isles are not lost, you czan see them in the history of the page at [1] (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Falkland_Isles&oldid=1203038). so if you want to modify either Falkland Islands or Falklands War you can use this page as a source. Mintguy 14:58 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to wikipedia.

Just one point may not yet be aware of, in creating titles royal styles (HRH, HSH etc) are not put in the link name. It is an easy mistake to make. The full rules on royal naming on wiki are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). lol FearÉIREANN 19:12, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Hello Astrotrain! I see you've been doing articles on royalty. I have a good link to you: www.genealogia.sapo.pt
It contains a very complete online Gotha with information about EVERYBODY. It's in portuguese, but princesa is not really that different from princess :) I think you'll find it usefull. One small problem: is offline at weekends and evenings - very stupid thing i think. And i supposed you can also find a glossary: glossário de termos. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop

---

Why is it better to have Leo Blair as a separate article from Tony Blair. Does he have encyclopedic merit outside being his father's son? Pete 16:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

NB the material you originally wrote for the LB article was transferred to the personal life section of the TB article so nothing was lost - just a more cohesive article set gained. Pete 16:11, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just to let you know I reverted back to a Tony Blair redirect just now, pending any comments from you. Pete 10:26, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Hiyas. I reverted Posh Spice Takes it Up the Arse to again redirect to Victoria Beckham. The information is all in her article, and I don't believe we need a seperate article on a single chant about her. See wikipedia:page size for some of the reasoning.

Note that the redirect to Victoria Beckham is itself listed on wikipedia:redirects for deletion, with some people feeling that, even as a redirect, the title is too offensive. You may wish to comment there. Martin 23:37, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Nicely done merge. However, I've moved the main article back to HMS Glamorgan (D19). One reason for that is the MediaWiki table at the bottom of the page. It already points to the destroyer with the pennant number, and it is possible that another HMS Glamorgan will come along at some point. If so, then we can always undo the redirect and make it into a disambig page. However, the article with the pennant number will always remain appropriate for the County class ship whatever happens in the future. David Newton 22:14, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You should have done the SSN Spartan on the specific page. There has been more than one HMS Spartan through the years. I say again to you, please create pages using pennant number or, failing that, year of launching for ships. If there has been only one ship of that name, please redirect HMS Whatever to the specific page. David Newton 22:43, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Again, I apologise for my inappropriate actions. My actions were intended well, as I was merely attempting to accurately display information that had been given to me by a friend and not trying to wreck anything. My unfamiliarity with conventions and, more seriously, the legal implications of my additions I very much regret. Calexico (Talk) 10:36, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I've reverted the changes you made to the Queen Victoria article. I understand why you made them but there was clear agreement on a standard format to be used in all royal pages. That was not to use the format you produced but the format that was on the page and is elsewhere throughout royalty. That is the standard structure agreed after exhaustive debate, involving starting articles on royalty with name, surname and birth-death dates. No other format should be used unilaterally. It took a lot of hard effort by a lot of people to find an agreed structure. The last thing we need is a return to the mess of 10 different structures for referring to royalty that existed before, with some people determined to call the Prince of Wales Mr Charles Windsor, etc. As an encyclopaedia we need to have an agreed structure for biographies and on royalty we have, so please follow it. FearÉIREANN 20:10, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 George V of the United Kingdom 2 George III of the United Kingdom 3 The Princess Royal and other Royals 4 Image:Prince William of Wales.jpg 5 Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun 6 2004 edits 7 2005 edits 8 Prince Ernst August III of Hanover 9 Optimus Prime (person) 10 Royal styles 11 Duchesses 12 Did you know has been updated 13 Image of Prince Harry 14 Nobel Prize in Economics 15 Article Licensing 16 Untagged images 17 24 hour block for 3RR violation 18 2004 19 More Image Tagging 20 Use of copyright images 21 Image source 22 Image copyright tags 23 Templates 24 Response to "Australia" 25 Templates 26 C21YearInTopic 27 Queen Alexandra reverts 28 Image source 29 Templates 30 Image:Earl Wessex.jpg 31 again 32 copied from Template talk:United States armed forces 33 Royal consorts and monarchs

George V of the United Kingdom

If you're going to delete large chunks of text in an article, it would be a good idea if you would explain on the Talk page, or at least on the edit summary, why you made the deletion. As it is, your deletions made the footnote numbering wrong. Please explain what you're doing. RickK 21:29, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

George III of the United Kingdom

Please do not make major deletions without at least a brief explanation. -- Emsworth 22:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agreed on the table, and have reinstated it. But I certainly think that his arms are relevant. The reader would note the removal of the French quartering, for example. So I must disagree with your assessment of my edits. -- Emsworth 22:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad we could resolve the problem amicably. -- Emsworth 23:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Princess Royal and other Royals

Recently, there was a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). The resulting rule suggested the following format:

• His Royal Highness The Prince A, Duke of X (A B C Windsor), styled HRH The Duke of X, is...

The current official style is to be included, so that the uninitiated or ignorant can know how to refer to the subject. Former styles, however, need not be included. Furthermore, one need not include the style for certain unambiguous individuals such as HRH Prince William of Wales. -- Emsworth 21:47, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a good idea to use HRH The Duke of X instead of HRH The Duke of X. -- Emsworth 21:56, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image:Prince William of Wales.jpg

I see you've just uploaded this image; could you provide information on its source and copyright status? In the mean-time I've tagged it with Template:Unverified.
Thanks.
James F. (talk) 22:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun

You converted this article to a REDIRECT to Big Mac without transferring the information therein across. There has been discussion about this on the talk page which did not result in agreement. I also see that you tried this conversion before and were reverted. Please discuss changes like this on the talk page rather than merely jumping in (are you the anoymous user who is featured on the talk page?). By all means be bold but be prepared to be reverted: you're not the only one :-) --Phil | Talk 12:12, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

2004 edits

What exactly was your point on the 2004 page? Indonesia and Cambodia not important enough for you? You do not seem like a vandal, but such deletions are unjustifiable, unless your world truly stops at the British shoreline. Ford 22:13, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

(Responding to User_talk:Ford#2004): I am more offended (and my sense of neutrality is offended) by your repeated exclusions of changes of government, including very significant changes of government, in parts of the world that you do not consider important, but most reasonable people do. Your language, and the suggestions of what are important enough, or would be important enough, to warrant inclusion under your standards, are, as I said, parochial. You have a narrow conception of what matters. I have read your comments on the 2004 page, and you are quite dismissive of the rest of the world, while unaware of the relative insignificance of things of your interest. Certainly Britain remains an important country, but not to the level that you rate it. The royal doings are trivial compared to actual changes of government. Your favoring of such business over matters of genuine import is baffling to me, and is the main reason that I tagged the article. But you can also be sure that I will keep the article tagged as long as there is so much as one use of a royal honorific. You may think the queen is majestic, but that is a point of view not shared by most (in the world, that is, not your corner of the world). — Ford 12:28, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

Your accusation of anglophobia against me on the 2004 page were bizzare. If there were accounts of minor political protests or the minute details of leader's movements in any other country listed on the page I would have removed them too. Will anyone care in 1 years time that someone put a flour bomb on Blair? No, and nor would anyone care that a protestor performed a civilian arrest on John Howard, or attempted to give Bush a handshake when he visited parliament, or dressed up as a sheep and hugged Howard which is why these (Australian) events aren't listed on the page. I'm positive similar events could be listed for most countries in the world, the fact that they aren't doesn't reflect anti-Americanism or Anti-sematism, the fact that these British events are there does reflect a British bias in the article, though. Saying I'm Anglophobic because I deleted a number of British events (and a lot of others if you had actually cared to look through my numerous edits) is bizzare, it's just that there happens to be a number of trivial British events listed on that page. Psychobabble 01:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2005 edits

Hello. I am the person who recorded the storm system which recently caused damage to great part of the United States, and I wonder why you think it is too trivial to add. This system swept across the entire country and is responsible for at least 16 deaths, almost as many as in the Italian train crash you added at the same time. I will put this back into the 2005 article in an abbreviated way. Thank you.

Prince Ernst August III of Hanover

An excellent reference for matters like this is this page (http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~canyon/prince.html) on the "Titular Dignity of Prince in the British Royal Family Since 1714". As far as I can tell (it's very complicated, and I may have missed something), as a great-great-grandson (as you rightly say, and not a great-grandson as the article claims) of King George III, he was not entitled to any British Royal style. The letters patent mentioned in the article state that "the eldest son of and the children thereafter to be born to Prince Ernst August of Hanover, then reigning Duke of Brunswick, was granted the title Prince of Great Britain and Ireland with the style "Highness" by Royal Warrant on 17 June 1914". This, however, doesn't appear to apply to him, only to his children. (In fact, it only applies to his eldest three children, because it was changed in 1917 and the others were born after that.) Thus, it seems that Ernst August III had no British Royal style, and his son Ernst August IV (along with his brother Georg and sister Frederika) was a HH Prince. The assumption of HRH Prince of Great Britain and Ireland by the Hanovers is invalid, and thus shouldn't be used in our articles on them. (The article seems to imply that the lack of condemnation by HM is an implicit acknowledgment of the style, which seems rather contrived.) Proteus (Talk) 12:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Optimus Prime (person)

There was no consensus to delete that page (some voted to keep, others to merge the info into Optimus Prime proper before deleting it). Summarily deleting it, repeatedly, despite the obvious fact that others saw some value in it, and making no effort to merge the information as others fairly suggested, or even to update the article you're redirecting to, to reflect the fact that you've deleted the "person" article, adds up to rather poor manners. Tverbeek 19:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you reading a different Wikipedia than I am, on drugs, or just on some kind of self-important power trip? The VfD did not support a summary deletion of the article as you claimed in your edit comment. The vote was pretty evenly split between "delete", "merge", and "keep". You're editing in bad faith. Tverbeek 00:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The consensus is tied" is nonsense talk; Either there's a consensus in which there's general agreement or willingness to go along, or there is no consensus, and there's a stalemate. That's what the VfD produced, which is why no action was taken. That is not an invitation for one provincial and self-centered individual to decide for the rest of Wikipedia what to do. Tell me: why do you have such a need to remove the article, when it's obvious that others want it to stay? Do you really want to get banned for editing in bad faith over this? I'm content to go along with whatever the majority wants... are you willing to, "Aristotrain"? Tverbeek 20:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you're going to make a redirect, you have a moral responsibility to do it properly: remove the disambig comment from the top of the target article, and honor the majority that also felt the material should be preserved. It's what I'd do in your shoes (and what I've done in similar situations). I'm adult enough to go along with consensus. Doing otherwise just because it suits you, and forcing others to clean up after your vandalism, is completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Tverbeek 22:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Royal styles

I'd say using "Prince Charles" or similar is definitely inappropriate, but I think I'd use "HRH The Prince of Wales" rather than "The Prince of Wales", mainly because I'd use "HRH The Duke of Kent" or similar to distinguish royalty from people like The Duke of Norfolk (especially with people like HRH The Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who not many people will have heard of, and so won't know are royal), and I think this should be extended to people who are obivously royals (like The Princess Royal and The Prince of Wales) for consistency's sake. I feel that writing out the full style, while obviously appropriate for the person's own article, is a bit too cumbersome when merely making a reference to someone. Proteus (Talk) 23:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Duchesses

The Duchess of Windsor was "Her Grace", but Sarah, Duchess of York, is not, as all honorific prefixes associated with peerages are lost by the wives of peers on divorce. Proteus (Talk) 15:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you know has been updated

And an article you created recently has made the line up and is now featured on the main page. Enjoy! -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:10, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Image of Prince Harry

You have not added licensing information to the image of Prince Harry that you uploaded in August. Could you please include the information? If it is not a free image, it will probably be deleted in my opinion as the fair use argument seems weak to me. Thanks --Hemanshu 09:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics

You recently removed a mention of the Bank of Sweden sponsored Nobel Prize in Economics from 2004. This rash action was probably caused by your confusion at seeing the actual full name of the award. Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, the one in economics is sponsored by the Bank of Sweden, since Alfred Nobel's will did not provide for a prize in economics.

Just so you know, in the future, you should click wikilinks and check out what something actually is before deleting haphazard. Thank you for your contributions. D. G. 02:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Untagged images

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Princess Anne, the Princess Royal.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks very much, Kbh3rd 06:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

24 hour block for 3RR violation

Having reviewed the edit war at 2004 I can see that you have broken the three revert rule by reverting changes six times, as detailed at the articles talk page. The punishment for this is a block for 24 hours. Please do not see this as an endorsement of the other party's viewpoint or a disagreement with your own - you need to avoid edit wars whereby you revert more than three times in 24 hours. After this time you are free to come back and further discuss this further at the talk page, though I do not recommend you recommence editing the article itself. violet/riga (t) 16:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2004

In what way will you try to resolve the NPOV issue? I would like to know so that I can unlock that page. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's fair. I'm sending a message to the disputing parties about this: I'm unlocking the page. Would you be able to start creating the new articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Um according to Scottish Parliament - 'At the first meeting of the Parliament in July 1999, the "mother of Parliament" Winnie Ewing, sitting by virtue of being the oldest MSP at the time, declared that the Scottish Parliament, which had been adjourned in 1707, was now reconvened, thus explicitly proclaiming a connection with the previous body.'. You also removed the information on Peter Sellers from the Princess Margaret article. It seems like whitewashing. PMA 22:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More Image Tagging

Thanks for uploading Image:Alexandra Standard.gif. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. For now, though, it will be tagged {{unverified}}. Thanks so much.

By the way, since I've seen other requests for you to post image tags, can you go through all of your images now and check for untagged ones? It would be appreciated. Superm401 05:07, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

---

One of the previous versions of the Princess Margaret article had a statement that her romantic relationship with Sellars had been confirmed by his family - it probably got accidentially deleted in your big rewrite of the article. PMA 17:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from a google it was mentioned in ITV's Margaret: The Secret Princess. PMA 18:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Use of copyright images

Dear Astrotrain,

I notice you have used a large number of my images for articles on Wikipedia, especially Royal Standards. The image of the UK Royal Arms is also by me. While I don't mind the images being used in Wikipedia, whose aims I wholeheartedly endorse, I would prefer it that my copyright in the images is acknowledged in some form. I regularly give permission for images from my site to be used on other websites and only ask that they include an acknowledgement such as "Flag image courtesy of The World Flag Database www.flags.net". Would it be possible to add this to the "image tags" of all the images of mine that you are using?

Incidentally Royal Arms and flags may not be protected by copyright, but drawings of them are, and the designs are protected under Article 6 of the Paris Convention on Intellectual Property.

It's not particularly surprising that my images turn up on Wikipedia, as I do most of the official drawings of UK flags, for both the MoD and FCO, as well as designing many new flags for state use.

If you want to email me you can do so at graham at flags.net.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Graham Bartram

PS. Sorry if this is the wrong way of doing this but I couldn't see any email link to use instead.

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Beatrice of York.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Ellmist 05:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright tags

Thanks for uploading Image:Nelson's monument, Edinburgh.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Astro, please see my question at Talk:Canada. I think you will see that the Canada article would bery quickly become overwhelmed by templates if they were added for all of the major international organizations to which Canada belongs. I look forward to your response, or I will join SimonP in reverting your changes. Kevintoronto 21:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to "Australia"

I don't recall ever suggesting that the template be placed in Foreign Relations of Australia, so I cannot understand why you be making such irrelevant statements. And on that point, I do not require an explanation on what foreign relations pertains to. Whilst discussing the matter of the "Commonwealth Realms" template, though I was not the first to remove it, I do not believe it is a necessary template for the article - especially given a "Commonwealth of Nations" template is present.

On reverting your edits, designating them as vandalism was perfectly valid. If you had reviewed your edits, you would have noticed the nonsensical duplication of the article. Your resentment, however, indicates that it was a mistake and not vandalism. But not knowing your edit history, I was unable to make that distinction.--Cyberjunkie 13:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see my followups on user talk:Cyberjunkie#Australia. clarkk 02:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Please stop adding the commonwealth realms template. No one else considers it useful. - SimonP 22:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone else who thinks the commonwealth realms template deserves to be on the country pages. Please stop adding it until some consensus exists that it should be on these pages. - SimonP 22:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

We have policies for a reason. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries states that it is generally discouraged to place templates for other international organizations in country articles. These can, however, go on country subpages such as "foreign relations of..." or "economy of...". I am fine with these templates going on the politics... of pages or the Queen of Canada type pages, but consensus seems to exist that they do not belong on the country articles themselves. I have seen at least half a dozen Wikipedians object to having these on the template pages and none agreeing that they are useful. Also be warned that you are nearing breaking the three revert rule and may be banned if you continue. - SimonP 22:35, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain: I see on SimonP's talk page that you are accusing him of being to be only one reverting these templates. If you check the history of the Canada page, you will see that I (when I was User:Kevintoronto have also done so. This should not surprise you because I spent a great deal of time trying to explain to you why the templates were not appropriate. And you responded to me, although not very satisfactorily. Why are you now trying to portray SimonP as a lone wolf on this issue when you know that it is not true? Also, people on the Australia page have objected to the templates as well.

More importantly, you have not responded to my last post on Talk:Canada. Instead, you went ahead to try to impose your changes on the Canada page without regard to the objections of regular editors of that page (SimonP and me). I prefer to discuss than to revert, but until you convince the active editors of the page to accept your changes, you must expect that they will be reverted. Ground Zero 13:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

C21YearInTopic

Ireland, South Africa, India and Canada are no more or less important than many other countries. The reason why the template links to them it that we have articles on them by year, unlike the other 170-odd nations. Warofdreams 10:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Queen Alexandra reverts

When using your edits to this article, there is clearly a large gap between the template and the text of the article. Placing the required syntax to align the template under the 'Princess of Wales' header eliminates this gap, which is what I have done. I have reverted the changes again and surely you can see that when the syntax is placed at the start of the article it is more (and I use your description of:) "awful" than the original position of the syntax. Should you wish to change it again, please discuss it further on the article's talk page as I'm sure neither one of us would enjoy being blocked for the "revert-rule". Craigy 18:53, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Peter Phillips.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Wgfinley 06:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Please stop adding the extra templates to the country articles. Many of them had four or even five footers. If links to all these countries were actually useful it would take far less room to simply have a link to every single country on one template.

Also note that recently the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes guidelines were rewritten (not be me) to specifically discourage these sorts of templates after this (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-April/022371.html) mailing list discussion. Note speciafically the warning that "multiple boxes are generally considered a blight." - SimonP 16:35, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

If we allowed every template that one or two people supported we would have dozens on each country page. Fortunetaly we have a series of policies preventing this. Could you please point to what other Commonwealth pages have these templates so that I can remove them? - SimonP 16:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, how about a deal. You stop adding these templates to country articles and I will stop removing them. If many people support these templates it should be easy to find someone else who will add them to the articles for you. If you do convince someone else to add them I will not remove them (but I might ask someone else to).- SimonP 17:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Could you please respond to my comments and my offer rather than simply launching another round of reversions. I am on the verge of filing an RFC about this. - SimonP 18:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting you as so far you have refused to engage in any discussion about why we should make an exception to our policies and allow your templates. I fairly routinely get into these debates about templates. Most users are reasonable and for the most part after a discussion in which I have pointed to relevant policies the other user agrees that their new template probably isn't such a great idea. You have yet to attempt any sort of discussion. Other than personal attacks and assertions that you are right you have yet to give a single reason why these templates are useful. - SimonP 18:18, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yet another round of reversions without discussion? This is not helping anyone. Please discuss this issue rather than continuing this pointless cycle. - SimonP 22:07, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

In your absence me and User:TreveX continued the discussion on these templates. You may be boycotting all discussions, but fortunately he was not. After a lengthy discussion we reached a compromise stating that the templates should go but be replaced by a category. - SimonP 22:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I, SimonP, am cordially inviting you to participate in a discussion about the usefulness of the Commonwealth of Nations templates. Now that I have invited you would it be possible to have a discussion rather than another round of reversions? I was reverted by others, and I then discussed with them and eventually, and with compromise, they stopped reverting. Hopefully the same can happen here. What is required for this process is to actually discuss the issue. If I knew why you believe these templates are useful perhaps I could understand what compromise might satisfy us both. If your arguments are really convincing I could even change my position and agree that the template should stay, this has happened before. - SimonP 22:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Other users were finding this discussion hard to follow. I have thus copied the various discussions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. If you are still interested in this issue it would be a good idea to discuss it there. - SimonP 16:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Earl Wessex.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Earl Wessex.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 08:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Image source

again

User:SimonP is up to his old tricks over templates and categories. He has now proposed deleting Template:Crowns on the template for deletion page.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion) Going by his past antics on Category:Westminster System[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Leader_of_the_Opposition&diff=13853691&oldid=13849832) and Template:Commonwealth Realms [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom#Templates) he's trying to delete a template that pulls all the articles on the topic together, then he'll start subcategorising all the articles and we'll end up with a complicated, user-unfriendly mess of a category. Your opinions and observations would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the support. BTW I have long held the view that the Template:Commonwealth Realms should be put back in place on all the articles. It was only deleted due to Simon P's bullying. I think it is high time they all were put back in place. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems like SimonP and chums are determined to force their views on templates and lists. It is that sort of amateurishness, and dodgy lists that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Thanks again for the support. I think we need to drum up some more support. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

copied from Template talk:United States armed forces

Before I start the unenviable game of "oh yeah, well revert this", I'm going to make my argument here.

The larger style images are inappropriate for the template because templates of this nature are not supposed to be that which draws your eye and attention -- the article is. Enlarging the images brings attention to them and detracts from the article. A template is supposed to be an addendum to the article for navigational purposes, not informational; I could have simply revamped the template to be text-only, but I felt the images lent it a sophistication that the original lacked. The images were not included for informational purposes (as indeed, templates are not needed or expected to be) but simply for a touch of "snaz" that did not require that they be particularly distinguishable, much less, legible.

If, for intangible or inarticulate reasons the images simply must be such a size, the template should be relegated to a less integrated section of the article -- the bottom for instance -- and be redesigned to be more appropriate for such a locale (horizontally, perhaps). — THOR 04:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bringing this topic more directly to your attention as you did not notice, or chose to ignore its placement on the aforementioned page. — THOR 00:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29#Royal_consorts_and_monarchs) cheers Antares911 23:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)