I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks. Chameleon 12:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia. You have uploaded a number of images, but gave no indication as its copyright status. What is the copyrigth status of these images? If you do not own the copyright to the images you need to obtain permission from whoever does own it to use it in Wikipedia. - SimonP 04:15, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, what better way to enter the new year as to talk about formalities :-) I have all the copyright permission in emails, how do i amend the images as to their copyright status? --Craigy144

Happy New Year. Image copyright status is indicated on the page for each image by copyright tags. For instance if you have received permission to use these images in Wikipedia, but nowhere else, simply add {{permission}} to the page for each image. You can quickly find the pages of all the images you have uploaded by checking your user contributions page. It is also a good idea to list who gave you permission to use the images. Ideally you could also include a copy of the e-mail giving you permission. - SimonP 05:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I'll edit each one accordingly. Thanks Craigy 06:41, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Image:H7 cor.JPG still needs a tagZeimusu | (Talk page) 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the article, not reverted, to make the page aligned. I shrank the image to reduce the "gap" you mention to a more acceptable one. Hopefully this will be better than the two previous versions. Astrotrain 19:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the references. This is important, as this page has twice failed to meet featured article standards. Hence even the smallest piece of information has to be sourced, especially as for some reason the page is frequently vandalised! Thanks. Giano | talk 21:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Buckingham palace has twice failed FAC, and I've rather given up on it, in my opinion it is good enough, but others clearly don't agree, if you want to have a go at improving it - feel free. The faults are listed below[1] and here after Aloan patched it up: [2] Having said that Blenheim Palace is languishing away on featured article candidates as we speak, so perhaps people just don't like large monstrosities! Giano | talk 07:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with Anne of England. Thanks for making that contribution. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:47, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I second that. Well done for all your work on Spoken articles. I count 12 contributions from you. Special thanks for being a non-American contributor and thus balancing things. I hereby award you the WP:SPOKEN Barnstar. — Chameleon 14:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of research when I edited that. Grandes armoiries started to be used only around 1500. So before 1500 there should appear only a simple coat of arms. Furthermore, each king often changed grandes armoiries, so it is better not to use them. In particular, the grandes armoiries you put for the Bourbon are a computer rendition of the grandes armoiries designed by Louis XIV. Louis XIII and Henry IV never used them, and Louis XV designed new grandes armoiries. The simple coat of arms, on the other hand, remained stable, so it is better to use the simple coat of arms. The coat of arms I used in the templates come from the grandes armoiries of Louis XIV (the original document, not a bad computer rendition), which I have cut and enlarged, so this is as best as we can get. My only regret is that the only original document I could find was not well scanned, so the blue is not as intense as it should be, and the gold is a bit too brown, but that's unfortunately as best as we can do for the moment. Hardouin 00:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Craigy. I don't mind at all that you borroed the format of my user page: I worked hard on it and I'm very pleased that you like it enough to use it (of course, I wouldn't mind if you left an HTML comment in the code giving credit... :) ). The the column spacing (I think that you mean the width of the columns themselves, right?) is entirely dynamic, and is set according to the width and amount of the contents. The center column, for example, is the widest by virtue of the fact that is has the greatest amount of content. The far right, because it has so few contents, adopts the width of the image it contains. I could figure out how to set specific widths if I looked up how to do it, but I find that when I do this the end result is a page that doesn't scale well to different resolutions (if you want to experiment, however, the best resource is The Official W3C HTML 4.01 Specification). If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line. Enjoy the layout! – ClockworkSoul 14:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that this guy doesn't belong into Category:Roman Catholic archbishops. I went looking through other entries in Archbishops of Armagh - Primate of All Ireland (Church of Ireland) and most are missing categories as well. Would Category:Archbishops be acceptable? Rl 19:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to create Category:Archbishops of Armagh (Church of Ireland) because I find this Irish bishop business very confusing. Here's hoping that someone who is more familiar with the issues fixes it. Rl 16:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The Bishops Arms are superb addition to the lists of bishops, excellent - Many thanks. (Would also make a very good name for a pub). --JohnArmagh 07:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears at least in some instances the Catholic bishops do have heraldic designs, for instance as shown at http://www.dabnet.org/arms.htm. What I don't know is how to go about rendering such copyright images as Public Domain! --JohnArmagh 17:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A high school article, no matter how short, is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Please refrain from misuse of the {{delete}} tag in the future. Kelly Martin 23:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Just like to say thanks for the HU.

Thanks for your message, i'm not 100% new to wikipedia but nobody has ever said hello before, thanks. One thing I wanted to make sure of though... did you post the list of links to the faqs etc because I did something I shouldn't or just to be handy - if I did something I shouldn't could you clarify so I can avoid it in future.

Cheers

LovingIt!

(your username seems to have appeared linked differently to mine?)

Help Please - I created the article ARCIC after searching wikipedia for ARCIC but have just discovered an Arcic article which did not come up in my search. I suspect the proper location for the ARCIC\Arcic article is Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission but I don't know whats best - should I move the more complete Arcic article to Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission and overwrite what is there and then have Arcic forward to the new location?

LovingIt!

Corington 12:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craigy,

How'd I come to your attention? First time I got a msg here so just curious..

Well done on uploading the image of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark from the Sweedish Wikipedia. Uploading the image had been discussed on the Margrethe II discussion page, but nobody seemed to know how to it. It looks so much better than the Coin Image of her. User -Right Honrable

Hi, you uploaded The_Imperial_March.ogg, this sample is really to long to be classed as fair use and the song definatly isn't in the public domain. Could you please upload a 30 second sample and get an admin to delete the long version? Thanks --nixie 10:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi: Thanks for sorting out my error on the associated user page. What was I thinking? --Theo (Talk) 00:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting my unintended blank on Polish-Soviet War of 1920. I had been trying to fix some spelling errors in Polish-Soviet War of 1920 (see here), but I'm not quite sure what happened. Sango123 16:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that new members always get a nice introductory message in their discussion boxes. at first i thought it was by a bot then i realized everyone had a different one. Bubbachuck 22:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. The Category:Peers has just become way too big, so it's time to divide it up. john k 19:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Microsoft Picture It, and have no idea why it's trying to do that, unless MPI is supposed to open XML files. I think it's working as normal in RSS readers like Bloglines. Joe D (t) 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The image is incorrect. The text below the Bangladesh official emblem is in some other language, NOT in Bangla. Here is the actual flag from Flags of the world site, there are other sites where the flag can be found. So I am removing the reference and the image need to be renamed. Thanks. --Ragib 01:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Craig, I know that this is a everyone edits web encyclopedia, but I find that some members are using a web page to further their own views. Is there a way of making an NPOV warning site locked. I don't feel that locking the site using one person or another persons final web page edit is fair. I'm proposing that we use the basic 3 liner explanation for this article I am talking about and lock the article. Cause many of us don't have time to return daily to re-do edits that some people seem to spend their whole day doing or un-doing. Extremely biased points of view are being used, which many editiors won't see unless they know much about the topic that the article states. VOO KAP 21:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for my welcome! :) Laconic 21:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see another British person not allowing generally accepted patterns of sleep get in the way of their Wikipedia enjoyment... -- Francs2000 | 02:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have it in mind to nominate you for Adminship. You seem to be doing some important tasks like welcoming new members, image copyright patrolling etc for which adminship helps. Would you accept? David | Talk 13:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing. Your nomination is currently on WP:RFA - many voters will wait for you to indicate acceptance and add your answers to the adminship questions. David | Talk 28 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)

Hi Craig, have you seen someone has objected to and someone else removed the picture at Buckingham Palace which you uploaded. The permission looks OK to me, but could you see if it could be altered to public domain it would be a shame to loose it completely. Regards Giano | talk 28 June 2005 06:12 (UTC)

So, is this re-instatement legal? About time this page found its way onto the front page - energy for a campaign? Giano | talk 20:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support for my adminship. Hey, wait a minute - you never voted! Well, that's ok, you've been very supportive in other ways. Cheers, -Willmcw June 28, 2005 21:57 (UTC)

Hi Craig, Fixed the problem - sorry to have trouble you. --Fir0002 June 29, 2005 01:31 (UTC)

Hi, Craigy. I only do not see problems with the second paragraph. The nature of her designs being plain and simple does not speak for a general objective opinion, but for your own. While it might be the opinion of many people, it is still not a fact, but an opinion. Public opinion can be taken as a fact, but you must provide evidence that public opinion is like this or like that. Simply saying people didn't mind her design doesn't seem very convincing of its being so. The same goes for people being annoyed at her. Hope I have helped. :-) --Golias_Miranda June 29, 2005 01:41 (UTC)

If you are going to check on images, it is polite to sign your items rather than post anomynously, and that the listed source is well established as public domain, dating from 1905. jimfbleak 30 June 2005 04:39 (UTC)

That's an impressive user page you've got there. Deb 30 June 2005 21:01 (UTC)

I'll have to see if the image is okay on the French Wikipedia.. WhisperToMe 1 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 4 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

Hi Craigy144:

Thanks for the welcome message, especially for the tip on how to sign with the tilde thingies.

Nesbit 5 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you edited my Empress Matilda page to redirect to the Empress Maud article little more than an hour after I created it. I want to forestall any potential edit warring over this by making the following case for the use of Matilda in the relevant articles:

• Although I am by no means the most widely read person in the world, nor am I a classically trained historian (of Britain or anywhere else), nonetheless, in all the reading I've done of the Norman era I had never seen a reference to Maud until I read the King Stephen article a couple of days ago in Wikipedia.
• Virtually every link and reference in the article refers to Empress Matilda (my Matilda article is a virtual cut-and-paste copy of the Maud article, changing the name solely in the narrative where necessary).
• Virtually all of the various language versions of the article use derivations of Matilda as the name.
• Many articles in Wikipedia pertaining to the era use Matilda (even though they link to the Empress Maud article, no doubt by default absent the previously unavailable Empress Matilda article).
• In the internet search I did, there were approximately 50% more hits on Empress Matilda (≈34,000) than on Empress Maud (≈24,000) (NB these figures are somewhat skewed as in the lower order of percentage of quality hits, many links will be presented due to hits on individual, unconcatenated words of the search string).
• Of the Empress Maud hits in the preceding search a great deal of the hits linked to articles that were either at Wikipedia or were clearly derived from Wikipedia.

If you have any serious concerns about the use of Matilda vs Maud, or if you could cite authoritative references indicating that any of the foregoing is misinformed, please let me know. Otherwise, I would be happy to collaborate on any of this to the extent of my limited knowledge, beginning with my intent to rework pertinent articles to indicate Matilda (and link to Empress Matilda) in the near future. I look forward to your thoughts. Duckecho (Talk) 5 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Whew! Then we're of a mind. I lapsed because A) I wasn't anticipating a redirect edit (particularly so quickly), and 2) I wanted to wait a bit to see if there would be any input from editors with entrenched alternate views. Although I have hundreds of edits on Wiki, my focus for the last three months has been on the Terri Schiavo article, and I am only just now beginning to branch out into other areas where I have a little knowledge and/or experience.

Here's what I accomplished this afternoon/evening:

• un redirected Empress Matilda (as discussed).
• redirected Empress Maud.
• found and reredirected Queen Matilda.
• Maud-ified the following articles:

• template:Normans
• King Stephen
• Henry V
• William Adelin
• Geoffrey of Anjou
• Henry I
• Robert of Gloucester
• Robert of Gloucester disambiguation page

Doing all of that, of course, I wound up with several other tasks. I ran across questionable or just plain wrong information on several pages and had to do some research and edits to clear it all up. I'm going to have to start a page for Isabella of Anjou, William Adelin's wife since she had at least some noteriety in her life besides being a child-widow. My dad used to say that research was like pulling a fishhook out of a jar—you pull up one and there are five more hanging on. Cheers. Duckecho (Talk) 6 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Have I corrected the flaw? This is an engraving published in a book in 1771. PD-art should be the category. I couldn't understand the covert instructions on the label you added to my talk page, and I only noticed them today. --Wetman 6 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work in Wikipedia! I've been doing RC patrol and tagging delete quite often, and I see you've been hard at work deleting them all. Just one quick question (maybe this is appropriate for the help desk if you don't know the answer...)- I note on some pages that I tagged for deletion you mark "and the only contributer was Flcelloguy...". Why doesn't the original IP edit show up? I've noticed this in the past as well- I tagged a page, and decided to leave {{test}} on the IP page, and there was no history (except for my edit)! Hmm... interesting. Anyways, thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 6 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll put the question on the help desk. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 6 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in on the fun at WP:PUI :) kmccoy (talk) 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

You removed a bunch of pictures from the "to be deleted" section of PUI, but they're not removed from their articles and the images are still on the project, but their description page is empty (except for the picture itself). Is this some sort of bug? kmccoy (talk) 7 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

Holy cow. Awesome job sorting through the Adam Carr pictures. I kept looking at that list and shuddering.  :) kmccoy (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. When you are moving images from phase I to phase II, are you tagging them where they're used in articles? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of the point of having phase I and phase II. :P kmccoy (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering she was arrested just last month, I think it's safe to assume that her profession remains unchanged. She was born in 1959, but frankly I can't be bothered at this time to hunt down her exact birthdate. She is also publishing a "tell-all book" detailing that she took up this line of work to support her sister's career. The book alone should provide plenty of meat for an article. (unsigned comment by User talk:220.238.84.167 12:04, July 10, 2005)

I was wondering if you'd mind if I borrowed some of the elements of code from your userpage, I have already requested permission from User:ClockworkSoul and since you seem to have done some cool things with the code was hoping you'd give permission. Please leave any reply on my usertalk page since I will not be watching this page. Thanks. Jtkiefer 20:31, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

hey craigy. glad to be here. i read alot of articles on the british monarchy and looking forward to reading more.

hey craigy. glad to be here. i read alot of articles on the british monarchy and looking forward to reading more.

Why did you change the date format on Louis XVI of France? It is against Wikipedia policy to change dates from whatever way they were put in, just as it is with the use of American English or British English, subject to relevant style of usage in different geographic locations. It also made sense in a European article in English to use the date format used by English speakers in Europe, as opposed to the mm/dd/yy format that is very much minority usage. Please leave dates as written. People can pick version they want to see by setting their preferences, once every date is Wikified. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 23:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is that image (Image:Wazn wahdah sayirah.PNG) not listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, but it very clearly includes source and thus copyright status. Thanks. Hyacinth 01:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I definitely understand how these things happen. Hyacinth 20:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the admin who maintains WP:RfD. The reason I was waiting to delete Highly-educated, high-class, elitism. and Liberal, tolerant socialism. was that they didn't seem to fall under one of the general criteria for speedy deletion, and they definitely were not one of the four extra kinds of redirect candidates for speedy deletion. That being the case, policy says that pages need to stay there for at least a week before they are deleted.

BTW, if you have extra energy, I used to archive WP:AN and sub-pages (WP:AN/I and WP:AN/3RR), but I just can't deal with it any more, and we need someone to take that job over. You interested? Noel (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on the delay replying, and no problem on the deletion - just wanted to provide information for the future. I obviously sympathize with the time bit! As for help, you might try User:SimonP - he offered to help with the archiving, so maybe he has some time. Noel (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you listed two images on my talk page questioning copyright. On both of them they could have the tag (already used on similar pages:

This image displays an insignia of a rank in UK Army. International law requires for combatant identification and copyrighting rank insignias violates international law, hence this image cannot be copyrighted and belongs to public domain However, both images have been superceded and can be deleted, but I have no idea how to do this. I will try speedy deletion first. Dainamo 23:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those images may well display insignia of the British Army. International law on the insignia themselves is irrelevant. Images carry a separate copyright. David Newton 08:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed *mega sigh* that yet another user has dragged up the lets rename Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom farce, only 9 days after the last vote ended. (What next? A vote every day on the issue next?) I have proposed instead this vote on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom page:

That Wikipedia stop wasting time on endless revoting on this goddamned issue and ban votes on this issue from this page for at least six months.

Hopefully this will put this nonsense to bed for at least 6 months. Your (hopefully final) vote would be welcome. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 21:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that you only have one postnominal per order. A KBE is no longer just a CBE, so he uses KBE instead. john k 15:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've added something described as the Scottish Executive Arms to the Scottish Executive article. The Scottish Executive does not in fact have its own arms. Rather, as it exercises its functions on behalf of Her Majesty, it uses the Royal Arms (the Scottish version thereof). The Executive's "logo", inherited from the old Scottish Office is also a representation of the Royal Arms, minus the flags and "lion with toasting fork". The First Minister is about to start using a version of this logo with the words "FIRST MINISTER OF SCOTLAND" within the circle. Acts of the Scottish Parliament are also printed with the Royal Arms, and larger Scottish Statutory Instruments use the lion and toasting fork as does the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. [3]--George Burgess 09:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the anon who uploaded Sourcefire also uploaded a bunch of stuff that reads like it came from the same source. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

A possible copy right violation was placed on this page. I copied this base text directly out of one of my internal company's reports -- which very likely could have something taken from a City of Denver's documents in part or whole. Overall, though, this wiki entry is a broad accummulation of hundreds of our sources and several of our authors. Can your program identify as such so it can be corrected? Pls respond to its talk page. Your comments appreciated. Thx.