I suppose it would be a better idea to take out the links, but if I recall correctly, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent do not carry out royal duties, but they are nevertheless on the template. Sure, they have represented the Queen at several foreign events, but they do not do it on a regular basis. --Matjlav 11:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for this?--Jimbo Wales 14:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you've been doing some mop and bucket work with a deleted image. I wasn't aware the image was going to be deleted until I saw your edit summaries. Do you happen to know why the image was deleted? Was it a source/copyright issue? If so, I have several of Penshaw Monument taken by moi that could be inserted in its place. The JPS 09:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've uploaded a couple of images to the commons and added them to the relevant pages. The JPS 13:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Craig,

Thanks for your support on my RFA. I just got my computer back from having its hard drive replaced and I'm busily installing software on it -- I'll be back to PUI once I get that computer working correctly. :) kmccoy (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up for deletion again, but I want to tell you that I am going to save it as a jpg image. Is that ok with you? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Привет, Крейг. Я немного вас не понял. Но, я думаю, вы окажете мне огромную услугу, если сможете найти этот источник, этот сайт, с которого вы загружали гербы для королевских семей Испании (royspa.jpg), Люксембурга, и так далее. Я буду благодарен, если вы найдёте этот сайт. А герб для герцогини Корнуольской я брал с сайта "The Royal Archive". Но почему-то, к сожалению, этот сайт уже несколько дней не работает.

UPD: Крейг, мне кажется, что и герб Андре Массена (Image:André_Masséna_coa.png) вы брали на том же сайте, что и гербы королевских домов. По стилю герба можно найти сходства. Я буду очень благодарен, если бы вы смогли вспомнить или найти тот сайт, где вы находили эти гербы. Спасибо заранее.

Craigy, greatest thanks to you! My French is not bad, so it's not a problem. Thanks again! Леонид Лишневецкий 1:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC +3:00)

Category:Move to Wikibooks, Category:Move to Wikiquote, Category:Move to Wikisource, and Category:Copy to Wiktionary are currently tagged as having backlogs. Do you still have a bot which could clean these out? -- Beland 01:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that should have been directed to Dmcdevit. I suppose it's good that I'm cleaning out this confusing table...thanks for your quick reply. -- Beland 01:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You are receiving this boilerplate notice because you have a task on your Cleanup Taskforce desk that has not been updated for over 30 days. If you do not wish to complete this task please assign it to another Cleanup Taskforce member who has space on their desk. If you do not wish to receive cleanup requests on your desk any more, you may remove yourself from the membership list. If you or someone else has completed the task, you can close it by adding {{cleanup taskforce closed|ARTICLE NAME HERE}} to the article's talk page and removing it from Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. If you have a status update (e.g. you intend to work on it in the future) or need help, you can update the collaboration page (which is linked from your desk). Also feel free to reply to the person who left you this message. -- Beland 06:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK now I'm confused, Beland. Why do I have a cleanup reminder on my talk page now? Craigy (talk) 06:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Your desk is User:Craigy144/Desk, and it has two issues which have been pending since May 24, 2005. I think we assume people add their desk to a regularly-checked watchlist, and thus know when things are added to it. -- Beland 06:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, I see. Sorry, I thought it was meant for someone else like before (and I haven't had any sleep). I'm thinking about removing myself actually, I simply haven't got the time to be part of it anymore. Craigy (talk) 06:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ive been going back through and putting copyright notices on all the pictures (im almost done with most of them). have i left anything out? nbgoku August 16, 2005 (UTC -6)

Just floated by your updates to the Bedford dukes. You've done a great job of digging out those post nominals which can be a pain to confirm. Only one slight doubt. I have no idea where wiki opinion is on this one but socially people don't tend to list hon degrees as post nominals. I don't feel strongly on this issue but just thought we ought to have some sense of a policy one way or the other. Alci12

Hello.

I apologise for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but you was so helpfull to leave comments when the article on the Krag-Petersson was listed on WP:FAC. Since I've just nominated it for FAC, I would be gratefull if you could take the time to look it over and leave a comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Krag-Petersson.

Thank you for your time

WegianWarrior 09:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay. Thunderbrand 14:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Because it is an orphan and is not currently linked to any page. Thunderbrand 14:55, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Those last several hundred entries you added to the line of succession were awesome! Where did you find them? EgbertW 19:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate your view on Talk:Queen's Privy Council for Canada regarding whether the Royal Marriages Act applies in Canada. One user thinks that the Act is part of Canadian law since it effects the line of succession. I say it does not effect the line of succession directly, and thus is only a UK law and the Queen only takes British govenrment advice on the matter. Any views or comments? Astrotrain 20:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Kindly take a look at Talk:John, Duke of Burgundy, where a poll is ongoing. Arrigo 10:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'probable', so hopefully it's just a small push to get you to 'definite' ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just wondering why you removed my edit on the Mackem rivalry page? What I added, I believe to be a fact. Perhaps we could work on making it more neutral if you thought it may offend anyone? I am originally from South Shields, which is more or less equidistant from the rival cities. I am currently however, living in Middlesbrough. The rivalry in South Shields is slightly more noticable since it is geographically and socially directly in the middle, and also because it has more of a mix of Necastle United and Sunderland AFC supporters. The rivalry is especially evident in the new town of Washington as it seems (I might be wrong) to have approximately an equal amount of Geordie and Mackem residents.

I don't want to offend anyone, however, I believe my edit should be included in the article in some form, as it is true that there are a considerable amount of people in both Newcastle and Sunderland who don't have a clue about the origins of the rivalry. They tend to attribute it entirely on football, or in extreme cases, for no reason at all. Sometimes, whenever a Geordie or a Mackem makes a reference to the rivalry, I question them. Most of the time, their response was just "don't know why," or "because they are scum!" and cound not give a reasonable argument.

Let me know how you feel about this. Take care!

Hi. I applogies for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but some time ago you was helpfull with comments on one of 'my' other articles on old Norwegian rifles and I wondered if you might be interested in helping out peer reviewing the article on the Kammerlader. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 11:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion on the correct coat of arms to display on the Scotland page? One user is removing the Royal Arms [1] and replacing with an historical coat of arms used by the Kings of Scotland [Image:Scotland royal coa.jpg]. Since you have uploaded lots of coats of arms pages, you may like to take a look at Talk:Scotland where the issue is being discussed. Astrotrain 19:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craigy, could you give me a hint on how I add the sources & copyright...ta

royalbuff

Could you please post a direct URL to the discussions re: the copyright status of the two Kate Bush images you flagged earlier today? I can't seem to find the discussions anywhere. Thanks. 23skidoo 22:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I'm not sure why it didn't show up before. Maybe the page hadn't been updated yet. Thanks! 23skidoo 23:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craigy144, I'm Saudade7 and I just took off a flag you put on an image on the Seth Shostak page. I did not originally post this image, but I know Seth and Jill (who took it) and it is now {PD}, just part of the world. I know they have seen the page and don't care, but I don't know what kind of proof you need...a letter? Let me know. Saudade7 09:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Saudade7[reply]

I draw your attention to pictures of old post cards on Wikipedia, a legality here in the United States which is different than you may be accustom to.

At your convenience please see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. :

The following note appears on User talk RHaworth *A minor template problem

• Note, mainly to self: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. suggests that Scotties uploads of old postcards are not copyvios. -- RHaworth 19:03:01, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Interesting about Corel Scott 15:47:20, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

• This is in reference to tags on
• Pictures of Pottsville
• Necho Allen
• Yuengling

Be advised, I would check the law on the pictures of post cards here in the United States before tagging such. If you wish, we could consider all pictures unverified on Wikipedia. I do appreciate your considerate means of commenting, a fair approach, before deletion though. I also understand you are attempting to clean house on the deletion back log page. How does one prove that a picture is unverified, as you tagged?

Thanks and regards,

Scott 01:32:57, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

===Craig, A message for you=== at *[2]

Thanks, Scott 03:20:55, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

I checked it out, and it seemed to be © 2 Digital, not Crown Copyright. So, if I'm correct, I had to lower the resolution to make it more fair use. --Matjlav^(talk) 19:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Image:UTAH SR-24.PNG a day after it was uploaded; the new criterion requires seven days after it was marked with no source. --SPUI (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rmvd deleted isn't very usefull. Removed deleted? Hey, the image is gone! :D

I think it didn't have a source but now I don't know why it is gone!

Agtfjott 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm.. Don't you read my mind? You should get those brain implants! Undredal stave church had an image, I wasn't sure if it had source or not but I guess it didn't.

Agtfjott 22:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hadn't noticed you wanted to delete Image:TA-YUAN.png in the Ta-Yuan article. Can you explain why??? I did the map myself. Thank you. PHG 22:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But don't you usually warn the uploader on his talk page before making a deletion? Can the delete be reversed? Thank you.PHG 22:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you delete the map of Thailand from the History of Thailand article? Adam 01:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The map was my original artwork, as was stated at the image page. For what reason and by what right did you delete it, especially without consulting or notifying me? Adam 02:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The map had been there since before these current rules were introduced. It was tagged "map by me" or something like that (I can't check since you have deleted it), and it must have had my name on it since I uploaded it. As a matter of both policy and courtesy, you were obliged to check with me before you deleted it. I will now report you to the appropriate person (whoever that is). An apology might have the effect of moderating my language when I do so. Adam 03:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This matter now seems to have been resolved: the image has been found, restored, and properly labelled. I apologise for my sharp words earlier. Please advise me if you intend deleting any of my other images (not unsourced photos, I accept they have to go). Adam 13:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Craigy144!

I'm sorry this might seem like a newbie question, but I'm a wikipedia newbie, so please bear with me :-).

You have recently removed the link from the "tameshigiri.jpg" image from the kenjutsu article, saying that the image itself was removed.

I tryed to follow the link from previous "incarnations" of the article, to find out why the picture was removed, but couldn't find information about it (like a picture history page). If I click on the tameshigiri.jpg link, it takes me to an "upload picture" page. Was there a copyright problem or something like that?

Would you shed some light on this for me, please? Claus Aranha 05:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update :-) Hmmm, I didn't read your talk page before posting, so it seems I'm not the only one with deleted images. Sorry for not looking the links to speedy deletion criteria and Possible unfree images first, but maybe you should put these in a more proeminent place?

Anyway, after the image is gone, how do I find what was the original problem with it? Thanks Claus Aranha 05:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why you have removed the image that I had added to the THC Ministry article.

The picture has been taken by me and as one of the founders of the THC Ministry I do have the right to publish it. Also, it was very relevant to this article.

I will add it again in the near future and would like you to not delete it anymore.

Thank you.

Ferre

Today can be a beautiful day! Enjoy it! Hugs, Shauri smile! 22:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craigy144, there will probably be a meeting for the purpose of discussing Wikimedia UK this Sunday, which you might like to attend. You could add your name there if so. Cormaggio ^@ 23:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello there Craigy144, could you please add the information about the copyright of this image? [Image:Hofburgthrone.jpg] I stumbled upon it and it seems it has been tagged for deletion, which would be a pity... cheers Gryffindor 00:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craigy - Thanks, I was obviously editing too fast that day (un-red-linking categories) - now you point it out it's obvious. D'oh! Cheers! Stephenb (Talk) 12:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Image:Test tube 2 and a bit.png last month. Do you remember why you did that? The image was created by me and licenced under the gfdl. It was used on a page along with a series of other similar images, none of which were deleted and all of which were released under the same licence. It was well over a year old yet you list recent changes to speedy deletion as your reason :-( It's easy enough for me to recreate the image, but I'm concerned about gung ho image deletions because deletion of images cannot be undone by other admins (unlike page deletions).

Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 05:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may want check out this dif [3] as it concerns (I think, if I remember correctly, some of your edits to the article) Personally, I can't see why these oft repeated stories can't remain as they make up the folklore of the plalace, especially as they all carry an explanation of non confirmation etc. In addition they interest people who perhaps are less intersted in the historic and architectural side, I've reinstated a couple of passages connected with the architecture and hard fact that should not (IMO) have been removed. I'll leave the rest to you, as the royalty expert, as I'm becoming tired of keep having to argue the worth of every dot and comma around this site. Regards 81.131.14.98 11:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: Sorry it's Giano the server keeps logging me out without warning - one of those days!

How are you getting or making these coat of arms ? Do you use the program Maire d'Armes? --Dudeness10 20:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Craigy, I am at work right now but I will get you that link to Maitre d'Armes and the clip art it came with. I've also gotten some clip art on my own for use with the program. I'm tryign to use Maitre d'Armes in conjungtion with Photoshop to make some nice Coats of Arms for peers in the United Kingdom. Perhaps we could try and get some sort of project together for the creation of the Coats of Arms. As you can see, I'm still pretty new to wikipedia and it's format (As apparent on my user page) but would love to use something like this to improve my knowledge of the site. Let me know! --Dudeness10 16:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find a link to a working website with this on it.. I tried Yahoo and Google, I can zip up a copy along w/ the clip art I have if you would like ? Just let me know where to send it/upload it

--Dudeness10 16:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craigy. I only just noticed that you'd deleted a picture I'd uploaded ([4]). Next time you delete an image, perhaps you could check that the uploader had been informed that the tag was insufficient, as the image had been tagged as a promophoto, which was correct, and sufficient. I'll find the photo again and re-upload it. Regards, Proto t c 16:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the Duke and Freemasonary. However I do not see the need for a succession box for the Grand Master. As with many articles, "succession box creep" has seen the addition of boxes for all sorts of positions and titles. I believe the boxes should focus on peergae titles, and in this case, succession to the throne- and refrain from adding any others. For instance I'm sure the Duke holds many positions which could have a succession box of their own, why single out the Grand Master title. I also removed the Lord Admiral box from Elizabeth II for similar reasons. Astrotrain 08:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I do realise that many other articles have succession boxes for all manners of titles and positions. I only looked at this article as I was tidying up boxes in general and adding external links for the royal pages. Can I ask why you think the Grand Master position is important enough to be used in a succession box? While I admit I know nothing of the role, I can't see the importance over any of the Duke's other roles and positions. Astrotrain 13:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry, I know this is an ancient post, but I saw it, so whatever. The title & role of GM in Freemasonry is about the highest one could get in Masonry. a GM is the Master of that GL (Grand Lodge), for instance UGLE. So, to be a Grand Master of all Freemasonry in England, & thus a peer of any GM of any other GL (usually country) is no small note. I know that's not a great explination, especially when compared to any other probable distinction of Dukes et. al.... Grye 05:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the plan I drew of Buckingham Palace (so you can see more clearly) - In an 1838 plan The octagon library was part of a complex of libraries which included the rooms marked A and H, - the octagon came off the bottom of the room marked H and the corridor K and partly in J. A later plan shows it slightly further east more at the top of the low wing R - so that was the approx. site of it anyway - it had a diameter of 42 ft. - and was converted to a chapel by Nash. I suppose it must have been swept away when the ballroom and new kitchen block were built circa 1847. As you say the Queen's's gallery was the private chapel, the present balcony at the east end contained the Royal pew (today a very small private chapel is underneath the balcony - a folding screen enables it still to be opened up if the need should ever arise). The gallery was converted in 1961, and has recently been refurbished again reproducing many of the decorative features from the state rooms.

I'm not sure either where is the best lace for it either - perhaps at the bottom of "20th century" - sort of beginning : "Following the war the chapel was restored and then became in 1961....." I don't know it' s difficult isn't it or I suppose directly after the paragraph where the Queen's Gallery is mentioned in "Use and public access". The page Queen's Gallery is only a small stub, I would personally make that a redirect, and have a whole section on the Queen's Gallery on the BP page - keep things all together. I look forward to seeing what you decide. Why don't you write it as a complete paragraph and then move it about until you are happy. Regards Giano | talk 14:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mentor craigy. What do I do about an article that is about the wrong person? Does that meet the criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks for your help. Taco325i 15:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I started a discussion on the Sheffield talk page about the Coat of Arms used in the Sheffield article. I did this because looking at the city council's website it seems that they claim the authority to grant permission to use the Coat of Arms. However, I noticed that the version of the Coat of Arms that you uploaded for the Sheffield page is subtly different to the council's copyrighted version of the Coat of Arms. So, my question is, what was the source for the image that you uploaded and do you know who the copyright holder is? Thanks, JeremyA 00:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You changed this template, and i saw that you tried to explain youself on the talk page but were incorrect!! The Grand Duke's cousins, sibilings, nieces and nephews styled as Royal Highness or Imperial and Royal Highness, are just as much a part of the Grand Ducal Family as Prince Michael or Princess Alexandra are a part of the British Royal Family. And Prince Michael does not carry out official royal duties (this is stated on the BRF web page, although I believe once he and Prss. Michael attended a coronation in Africa) either way, the changes you made were wrong, and I would apreciate it if you would change it back. Regardless of whether or not the links are red! If they are someone will have to make stubs or disambigs. Thank you Mac Domhnaill 22:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information on the source of this image. At this stage I don't know whether or not the use of this image in the Sheffield article qualifies for fair use, so I'll leave it be for now. JeremyA 03:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally recreated it adding speedy tags, please redelete.

Prodego^talk 20:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I was about to submit Eastern Lane for AfD. But I noticed you had already deleted it as "pov". Is this appropriate? POV isn't a CSD. Much as I'd like non-notable bands to be speed-able, the fact is currently they are not. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend the anonymous vandal hit your Wikitravel user page. I have cleared it, but if there are any other Wikis where you have a user page, you might want to check them out. -- Cjensen 21:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be thrilled to discover that you have been named as part of a Villainous Clique of Leftists by a certain individual! [5] Paul B 18:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, its nice to be appreciated! Astrotrain 21:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]