Hello, I see you added Image:William-Ewart-Gladstone-arms.PNG and Image:Winston-Churchill-arms.PNG. Can you let me know what source you have that the former is WEG's as as far as I know & have been able to find out he wasn't entitled to a coat of arms, never having accepted a peerage. My thought was that the arms were those of his son Herbert John Gladstone, 1st Viscount Gladstone rather than of him. Also on WSC what source do you have as as far as I know he didn't have a coat of arms of his own (again no peerage)& I'm unsure (& doubtful) of his entitlement to use the Marlborough coat of arms (& I don't believe he ever did). Please let me know and I'll clarify the articles.

Thanks AllanHainey 13:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Craigy, I suppose the Garter would entitle WSC to a coat of arms I hadn't thought of that. WEG never took a peerage or any honours so I believe the arms aren't his but those of his son. I'll remove the image from the WEG article & see if I can get it renamed or moved to something like Gladstone arms. AllanHainey 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed the dynasty infobox from Queen Anne-Marie of Greece's page. Thank you. I have been reworking them all morning, trying to get it to look right with 3 on there. Now we just have to go back and change the rest that he got to (all of Belgium and Norway's royals). Good luck to us. Prsgoddess187 17:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for letting me know about the deletions. Prs and I did a mass revertion so hopefully all the strange edits have been removed. Thanks again. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What do you think of Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece being moved to Paul of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg? I thought about moving it back, but I really do not want to get into an edit war about it. Just trying to get feedback from others. Thanks. Prsgoddess187 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recently completed a substancial re-edit of John Murray, 1st Marquess of Atholl which you recently added a cleanup tag to - It's a subject I've researched but wouldn't claim to be an expert on. I'm not entirely sure on the formatting (particularly the presence of a trivia section for such a subject - it seems... tacky), but I think the information presented is clearer, more abundant and accurate. In case you weren't watching it, thought you may consider a re-read. - Hayter 21:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prince John,

Hi,

I'm in new territory on this whole Wikipedia thing. Can you help me? How much time to I have to add citations? Thanks and best wishes. Ross Plaetzer PS I need to set up an account, too!

rossfp@gmail.com

This is to let you know I've slightly changed the wording of the poll at Talk:Line of succession to the British Throne, in case you want to review your vote. (I was intending that nobody would vote until the wording had a few days to crystallize; but I guess I was unclear. Sorry.) Doops | talk 05:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...for the groovy barnstar. I've not been on Wikipedia much recently because one of my Christmas prezzies to myself this year was ancestry.co.uk membership for a year and I've been wildly ravaging the census returns on there for details of the various branches of my family! -- Francs 00:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate,

You may remember the war on styles that was waged some time ago and the eventual compromise reached which meant that styles (Holiness, Majesty, Royal Highness, etc) are no longer used in royalty articles. A series of templates were created to enable users to warn other users who attempt to reinsert styles into articles that that is no longer WP policy. However a user who is trying to get a whole series of templates deleted has nominated them on the WP:TFD for deletion. I am thoroughly fed up having to defend necessary templates from the minority of deletion police on WP who seem to act as a group: one nominates, then the rest all vote to agree with them. All help to defend the necessary templates in the styles series gratefully received. Thanks. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your generous acknowledgement. Happy New Year!—Theo (Talk) 00:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was surprised but indeed she is. Her partner is Betty Boothroyd. Cheers Arniep 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I saw you have edited the coat of arm of the illegal turkish cypriot state. Can you help me please to edit the flag of Cyprus as well because it has few mistakes(especially in colours)?User:KRBN

Thanks for your Freising COA, however your COA is for the county of Frising, not the city (which is the topic of the aricle). You can look at the German wikipedia for the correct version although the image quality is not very good.Somoza 11:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when deleting an image and replacing it with a PNG to correct all the links. I have just had to spent a half an hour correcting tons of links to one image on templates that you deleted without fixing. You may be checking pages with images but please check all links to templates. I am fed up constantly having to undo other people's mucked up deletions. (Sorry if I sound a bit bitchy but it is a tad annoying constantly doing this all the time to repair other people's changes.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I know you aren't one of those who just can't be bothered fixing changes. It was a "what de frig happened to the image in the template?" moment. At least it could be fixed easily. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to keep an eye on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. User:DreamGuy is annoyed that there is some coverage of the Jack the Ripper allegations against the Prince in two articles. He has spent months demanding that they be merged, and got no support, because Royalty and urban legends isn't about the Jack the Ripper case but about rumours about royalty and so covers a series of myths from that angle in a specific narrative. He now is annoyed that as that attempt to merge the article (or bits of it) into his own beloved article on Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories has flopped consistently for months and so sneaks into the Albert Victor article, dumps links that aren't to his article, and posts abuse on the edit summary while doing so. I've given up even replying to him and his antics, and just revert. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this is better than the older image that was on all the Hashemite-related pages. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 01:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my source: Sunday Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1986342,00.html stevenmar 01:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Craigy144 - I notice you've done work on the the Transportation in New York City article. It's really come along and has been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week. You shold vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW Wv235 03:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of starting to sub-categorize the images in Category:Coat of arms images, creating Category:British coat of arms images and Category:British personal coat of arms images (for starters). I hope I am not being presumptuous in asking you to consider using them for future uploads; it makes it much easier to see what's already available in the coats of arms without sifting through the national coats of Togo or whatever. On a related note, what is your source for the arms of George Talbot, 6th Earl of Shrewsbury? The lion in the bordure engrailed is indeed the coat of Talbot, but I would expect him to at minimum carry the quartering for Strange borne by the 1st Earl. Choess 21:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

FYI. The file RBL_Standard.png (used in the The Royal British Legion article) seems to have been missing for a while. Dlloyd 06:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed the House of Stuart and Hanover template that I created from Sophia of Hanover's page because it was "inaccurate". What part of it was inaccurate? Perhaps it could be corrected? *Kat* 12:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:William-fergusson.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.

Didn't like the Joke? Colon (anatomy) Actually, I was wondering how long it was going to take for that to get to get edited out. No complaints, though, on the edit. It got in after a late night. Cheers! Steve Kd4ttc 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you changed "three knighthoods" to two named ones. What about the third one? Guettarda 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the one he got from the Queen in the 1980s? Granted, I don't know what the situation is when it is given to a Commonwealth Head of State (Irish people and Americans, of course, can only get honourary knighthoods, but I don't know what the situtation is for Commonwealth states who don't have the Queen as head of state. Guettarda 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Clarke is listed in the British Baronetage and Knightage [Whitaker's Almanac 2005, p 89] as having only one British knighthood, that of the GCMG. Others such as papal knighthoods or Knights of Malta, etc are not recognised in Britain as conferring "Sir" prefix. Accordingly, he has only one knighthood. Knighthoods and other titles are not given precedence in ex-President Clarke's Republic.

Crepescules 17.13, 9 August 2006

Hello, mate, I see that you are interested in Eurovision. Would you like to be involved in connecting with more eurovision wikipedians to do up the eurovision pages in a more coherent manner? I have come across the Eurovision wikiproject page, which seems to have been dormant for over two years. It may be an idea to have a look there and see how we could improve the eurovision coverage. I have done up the Congratulations (Eurovision) page so far and put notes about it on the pages of those who performed there. Best regards from Australia, Blnguyen 07:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke of Calabria had already died, why you add this in the Spanish Royal Family?Astorknlam 15:00, 8 February 2006 (GMT)

Same for Image:Low-aus-flag.PNG.

Greentubing 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for reverting my edits on the Alexandra Hamilton article, and certain others. However, in the blurb on Category:Living people, it clearly instructs that articles are to be indexed by family name. In this case, Alexandra Hamilton's family name is Hamilton, hence my edits. 86.139.50.215 16:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, previous edits were mine. Jdcooper 16:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greentubing 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome. i`m acctually a newbie, but i hope i can help as much as i can User:Macedon19

I would like to suggest that you remove the image from you signature, or, failing that, at least change it to Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg (Image:Uk flag large.png is in the process of being orphaned, so it can be deleted). Thanks. – ABCD^e✉ 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Some time ago you deleted Image:Wiceadmiral.jpg, an image which is essential to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Polish military history task force and its {{Infobox Polish Soldiers}}. As I'm working on improvement of the latter template I ask you to please un-delete the image - or at least send it to me by mail. Sadly I lost all of my archives recently and Emax, the author of all the images in the gallery, is currently inactive. Thanks in advance. Halibutt 03:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I know there are other rank images in the web. However, neither the sleeve strap you posted the link to nor the PD images published by the Polish Ministry of Military Affairs are compatible with the rest of images made by Emax some time ago. What I'm currently working on is a way to automagically add rank insignia to {{Infobox Polish Soldiers}} if only the rank is cited, pretty much the same way (though simplified) as in the infobox on football teams. Of course I could make the images myself from the scratch, but it would be much easier to undelete instead, without having to spend hours on breaking through previously opened door, if you know what I mean. Halibutt 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, to clear your doubts, copyrighting any military rank insignia violates the Geneva Convention and several other laws, hence they are all PD, no matter what the author states. Hence the {{Military Insignia}} template, for instance. Halibutt 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words! Although I'm really a Scot... ;) Nach0king 09:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plaese notice that that the escutcheon of the Hanoverian Coat of Amrs does not show any crown, but the Imperial Crown of the Holy Roman Empire. I corrected it twice in images uploaded by you, but I'm not quite shure these are all.--Hun2 08:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your page move, in particular the opening line where you have both titles separated by and. I'm going to ask a few people at Wikiproject Peerage for their opinions.

By the way, you've broken several redirects by creating double redirects. [1] Please fix them. JRawle (Talk) 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Proteus has moved the article back. I was going to leave it alone until we'd had a dicussion. Anyway, there definitely needs to be a policy on these cases. Thanks for the additional examples – I couldn't find any before. JRawle (Talk) 21:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the convention was that a woman used her husband's title unless she held a higher title. Anyway, we'll see if anyone answers. Most of the results in Google will be from Hansard and other parliamentary or politics-related sites, so we know they will use "Masham of Ilston". JRawle (Talk) 22:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this makes it even more complicated: [2] JRawle (Talk) 11:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale behind not using the "Dowager" title is that we don't name pages so that the title has to change when they or their husbands die. (For this reason, I noticed Proteus also deleted my redirect from "Countess of Swinton" when he moved the page back). For suo jure peers, naming the pages is easy as it contains the ordinal. For wives of peers, they are just Name, Countess of Somewhere both when they are married and widowed. Their names normally serve to disambiguate. This is closer to the correct form for a widow anyway. As one of the peerage articles said, the title "Dowager" is rarely used nowadays anyway. However, as one example, Maiko Joeong-shun Lee, Viscountess Rothermere always calls herself "The Dowager...", so I added a note to this effect in her article. JRawle (Talk) 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was virtualy walking around at the English wiki (I'm a editor off the dutch wiki). And I found a picture that looked to me very familiar. I cannot find the source of the image, but I might be consider that this image is from this webpage: heraldique europeenne I think that on the images you uploaded is a copyright! But I cannot read french (my most exotic reading is hieroglypics, djet mehoet in [word spoken by...] Oesermaatra0069!) so I hope:

• that the images are from a other site
• the images are generated with free software
• I was wrong and made a mistake by reading

Kind regards, Oesermaatra0069

As indicated on the category page for Recipients of the DSO - is this really necessary? It was practically a gimme for battalion commanders and recipients of the various militaries and services numbered in the 1000s. VC winners I can understand, even some of the rarer Orders, but the DSO? Michael Dorosh 18:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After 13 months in the design stage, and three mpnths for delivery all I remember aboutthe cost is "I wish I were Scottish" :) garryq 11:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this category. I think it's a good idea. Is it intended to move articles from the "Baronies" category, or keep them in both? (See the current debate about Female life peers – although this is a different situation as it isn't a gender-specific category.) JRawle (Talk) 16:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might go through some of them and add them to the new category if ever I have nothing better to do!

Proteus didn't comment any further on the peeresses, so he still thinks they should be at the "higher" titles. Only one other person joined in at Wikiproject Peerage, who agreed that the page title should be the most commonly used title, but the opening line should use the higher title (followed "known as Baroness Whatever" to explain it if necessary). JRawle (Talk) 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you recently uploaded Image:Gnevillcoa.JPG, purportedly the arms of George Nevill, Duke of Bedford, son of John Neville, Marquess of Montagu, son of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury (jure uxoris). What is your source for this? I'd expect George to bear his father's difference mark, since the arms thus displayed (Neville quarterly with Montagu and Monthermer) are those of the Kingmaker before his marriage. Choess 22:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now. Interestingly, he's put a difference mark on the Marquess of Montagu's coat (a crescent sable); there seems to be some question as to whether Montagu used the crescent (logical, as a second son) or a "gemmel ring". See [3] here for a variety of (modern) images of Neville coats; unfortunately, they've turned a cross engrailed into a saltire on George's inescutcheon of pretence, and I suspect the gemmel ring should be on the Neville coat rather than the inescutcheon.

I'm afraid I can't help with the software: I've tracked it as far as http://descodev.com/, the content of which seems to have fallen off the planet over a year ago. Choess 23:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can I ask what your source is that Mary Russell, Duchess of Bedford was a tax resistor, please? Thanks Craigy (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

New York Times 3 May 1913: "The [Women's Tax Resistance League] was formed three years ago with the slogan: 'No vote, not tax.' It is non-partisan - an association of constitutional and militant suffragists, recruited from various suffrage societies for the purpose of resisting taxes. The prominent members are ... the Duchess of Bedford ..." -Moorlock 20:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, after the date of final combination of the offices of Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum in each county (see here), I've simply referred to the "Lord Lieutenants and Custodes Rotulorum of X" as "Lord Lieutenant of X". See also Lists of Custodes Rotulorum, which I've set up over the past month or so. I should probably add a note to the page of each Lord Lieutenancy as well noting when the combination took place; I have to go through them anyway to add a note in a comment in the bottom asking people to update the Order of precedence article when they add new Lord Lieutenants. Choess 23:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we going to explicitly include "Custos Rotulorum" in the title of post-18th century (plus or minus) Lord Lieutenants? I'm not fixed on one way or another, but we should be consistent. Choess 23:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have every permission to use the picture for the Wikipedia Article on Lord Brougham. Apologies for the delay in replying. Sculpher 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it was specifically mentioned when the abeyance was terminated, it would still be in abeyance from 1815, wouldn't it? Choess 18:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it was a natural termination. How foolish of me. Never mind. Choess 19:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter Gwynn-Jones coa.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eva ^db 14:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have missed the copyright information. All I see is the generic coat of arms template. I'm not sure the license is specified in that tag.--Eva ^db 15:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coat of arms tag say "In other cases, it is believed that these images may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States copyright law. If this is the case, please add the appropriate copyright tag. Otherwise this image may be deleted in the future." I think that this case would warrant a {{Fair use in| }} tag. It's obviously not in the public domain as the armiger is still living. I think that you are right about most of these needing to be reevaluated. I think using arms to illustrate articles is fine, but it should be clear what right we have to do so.--Eva ^db 15:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me. Sorry to be a stinkler. Thanks for switching it a bit.--Eva ^db 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Paulmccoa.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Arniep 22:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Arniep 13:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody set up new subcategoryies for Category:British MPs; I've been converting articles as I go. If you're using User:KuatofKDY's section headers, there are separate ones for Parliament ({{s-par|uk}}, {{s-par|gb}}, etc.) and political offices ({{s-off}}). Choess 02:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

Thanks! --evrik 19:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better. Thanks for all your hard work on heraldic topics.--Eva ^db 09:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's me again... I just noticed you have added articles to these categories. Presumably the categories are for wives of peers, not for suo jure ones? For example, The Countess Mountbatten of Burma is currently listed in Category:Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, which seems sensible.

I wonder how long the categories will survive with "British" in the names. Certain users (naming no names) seem intent on removing the word British from Wikipedia entirely. JRawle (Talk) 13:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you say who is the creator of this image? Thanks Arniep 23:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. See the note I added at Image:Bishop-sarto-of-mantua-01.jpg. Do you disagree about the proper use of this at least 103 year old image as expired copyright? Thanks for your feedback, -- Infrogmation 00:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well first of all im not sure if yu were the one who uploaded the coat-of-arms of Edinburgh, right|50px but yur user tag link was the only one in the page so i just assumed, anyway im currently translating the page of Edinburgh to spanish, "Edimburgo", there is currently some information there, but only a parragraph, small at that, and i had translated the pages of Stirling and Dundee, so i thought of doing the same for other Scotish cities. point is i need the coat-of-arms, problem is i cant use the image because is not in wikipedia commons, and yes i could put up the page without the coat of arms, but whats the fun in that. if yu are not the one who uploaded the image, then lol, i just wasted my time, but yu can still help me if yu know some way to do that. mijotoba 05:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome thanks, that was quicker than i thought it was going to be. If yu ever want an article to be translated into spanish i'll be glad to do so, im a translator in real life, so im good. mijotoba 21:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]