User talk:DrKay

Stuart period

Hi. Can you tell me why you removed both of the family trees of James I and Anne, and all of the section on Anne?? Stephen2nd (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be an article about the Stuart period in Britain, not a poorly-formatted amalgam of disconnected bullet points illustrated by pictures of how the Stuarts are related to the dukes of Saxe-Lauenberg. DrKiernan (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about the Stuart period (wherever). The family trees were of the first and last of the Stuart monarchs, and relevant to these Stuart successions of this period.

Can you please explain what you mean by: (1) Poorly-formatted amalgam? (2) Disconnected bullet points? (3) (Especially) illustrated by pictures of how the Stuarts are related to the dukes of Saxe-Lauenberg??. What has this to do with removing the family trees, and removing the entire section on Anne? Stephen2nd (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The family trees showed the descent of the Stuarts from the dukes of Saxe-Lauenberg. That is not relevant to the article, and consequently should be removed. DrKiernan (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ernest at FAC

At last--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind coming back and giving your view as to some of the comments recently made by Kirk?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again I ask you to come back and look at Kirk's more recent comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oxford spelling

Thanks for finding evidence linking OUP style with "Oxford spelling". I lost attention briefly, but I've now made a further comment on that talk page. Andrew Dalby 09:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou

DrKiernan,

Thank you for fixing the problem. Aside from the fact that my computer shut off as I was adding a comment, I have no idea how the blanking of the whole page happened.

Best regards,

--Frania W. (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)==

Talk:Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen

You wrote: Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen‎; 09:40 . . (-264) . . DrKiernan (talk | contribs) (This was explained when it was removed, which was in February 2007, as "consistency per WP:BRoy SG". My problem with it is that it is very repetitive to give the names twice in the first sentence.)

No, my change was reverted in September 2008, so you have apparently reverted the addition of Queen Adelaide's birth names twice, after contributions by two different users. I note that a few weeks ago you were also in conversation with another user after deleting references to German ancestors of the British royal family. This looks like a pattern.

Okay, you think my edit was repetitive. I think it is reasonable for the entry to state what Queen Adelaide's birth name - that is, her real name - was. How do you propose we do that without being "repetitive"? Peter Bell (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who removed it in February 2007. The Stuart period edits are clearly unrelated. Your accusation of tendentious editing on my part is unfounded.

It is unnecessary to repeat the names for a fourth time, after they are already given twice in the infobox as well as in brackets in the lead. They should be left out. DrKiernan (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, if the names are prominently mentioned in the infobox, that should be all that is needed. If we clutter the article with German jawbreakers, people will not read it. I think it is fine as is, I urge Peter to think about whether there is actually any problem for the reader or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Emperor Pedro II of Brazil

Hello! I am very greateful for your help on reviewing the article about Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. I know it takes time and patience and it is quite hard when the subject isn't widely known. I and Astynax are working together on articles related to Brazilian history in the 19th century and we've been putting a great deal of effort in it. Thank you once again.

Also, we are going to nominate soon another article we've finished. This one is about Pedro II of Brazil, the Emperor who reigned for 58 years. I would like to known if you would have any interest on taking a look in it and reviewing it. I'm pretty sure that it's an interesting article and you will enjoy reading it.

Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag of Japan

Hello.

You is the one of users with the largest number of editions in the article of Flag of Japan. In the Portuguese Wikipedia the article of Flag of Japan is the same, except that in Portuguese. I work in creat articles for "to blue" the article in Portuguese Wikipedia. And I realized that both articles in both languages are dead links. And earnestly ask, is not there a way to recover the dead links or substitute another source? In the Internet Archive failed, In this sites Category:Web archives could be good? I believe that the best way would be to find another source.

Thank you for your attention. Sorry my bad English. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Prince Philip

When looking at the page on HRH I noticed a few things and I have a question.

Let me be frank and tell you that I have made some changes to the discussion page, please feel free to change my edits you can click here. The reason why I looked however is that I was wondering what his last name is if he were to be a civilian. I had always assumed that he is a Mountbatten (his mother was a Battenberg). Now somebody claims that he is Windsor. I just do not know. Can you enlighten me?

To my surprise I also saw that he is a deified person as he is considered a god in Vanuatu mythology. Is this really true? And should it be mentioned in the Wikipedia? Again I just do not know. This is definitely not my area of expertise.

--JHvW (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, his surname as a civilian was Mountbatten, and that is the only surname he has ever used for himself. His wife's surname would be Windsor, if she used one, and their children have used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

Yes, it is true apparently; I think it should be mentioned but not more than the single sentence currently in the article. There is a separate article with the details: Prince Philip Movement. DrKiernan (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I had already seen the article, I was just surprised to see that he was included in the category Deified persons, as I was under the impression that England had abolished the absolute monarchy. Nice to see that some Royals are still considered Gods. --JHvW (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

George Washington

A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 23:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Dr Kiernan,

Thank you very much for the welcome back message. I believe it's best to leave the old account inactive although I'll keep your message in mind if I do think I need the account again. I quite enjoyed the work at FAR but I'd rather return to some of the original work I was doing in 2005 -- working on something I care about.

I believe I am paraphrasing you: "one day you will be looking in the eyes of your children and you will realize that Wikipedia is a server crash away from meaninglessness." If you have children (or nieces and nephews) why not print your own favourite featured articles, bind them, and store them as gifts for the future? That's what I intend to do from now on. Timothymarskell (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Of arms and the man I sing...

The arms of any modern-era Prince of Wales are going to be identical. Just as the arms of an armigerous house are inherited undifferenced along with the headship, so too the arms of the heir of that house during the time when he/she is the heir are going to be identical. As we see at Cadency#The Royal Family, the sole difference for the Prince of Wales is a "Plain three-point label, and [since 1911] an inescutcheon of the traditional coat of arms of the Principality of Wales." When Charles becomes King, his arms will become the royal arms without any heraldic difference, and William will inherit the arms of the new Prince of Wales just as he inherits that title and office. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the arms. Note that I placed these arms in the article. It's the full achievement that concerns me, specifically the bits and pieces underneath the shield. I'm not convinced that the Cornish shield, Welsh dragon and plume of feathers shown in the compartment of Charles's arms were present in the arms of previous Princes of Wales. That's why I'd like to see a reference saying that they were. DrKiernan (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'd suggest you'd have to find a really vintage Burke's or the like to answer that one definitively. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC) (a fierce republican who geeks heraldry)

I have a 1900 Burke's if it is any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Alas, no. The change that incorporated the Llywellyn Welsh escutcheon wasn't put into place until 1911. I'd say we need a 1916-1936 or so vintage. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I will look through my references, but I don't think I have anything of that vintage. Given the great weight and bulk of a Burke's, I am sure it is the only one I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Princess Charlotte of Wales

Just finished, late last night. Rather than clog up peer review, do you think you could put some comments on the article talk page? I doubt I will take it to FAC for about a month, I have one article waiting for a slot already.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I did shorten it per your suggestion but used different phrasing. Princess C. is my next article at FAC, she is just twiddling her thumbs waiting until Shield nickel clears the page, which could be a couple of weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll look out for it. DrKiernan (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it. I'll take another look at the article in the next few days, and then in all probability support. DrKiernan (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Blessef Margaret of Lorraine

Bonjour,

A typo has been made in the title of the article "Blessed Margaret of Lorraine", when it was moved on 12 August [1]. Both the person who moved it & myself tried to correct the title, but when doing the correction, we are told the article on "Blessed Margaret of Lorraine" already exists, and we are directed to "Blessef..." [2] with this text in red:

• The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

Since you already corrected one of my huge booboos, I am turning to you for help.

Merci d'avance !

--Frania W. (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! I've done that, but Margaret of Lorraine is a redirect to Blessed Margaret of Lorraine: Should the Blessed be dropped? DrKiernan (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The typo has been fixed so, right now, it is probably better to leave things as they are. The contributor who had moved her added the "Blessed", I guess in order not to mix her up with this "Marguerite of Lorraine".

Hopefully, I will not have to bother you anymore, although I know where to turn for quick help!

Thank you so much! --Frania W. (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to thank you very much. And I added the Blessed because she was beatified similiar to Blessed Margaret of Savoy and also there is two Margaret of Lorraine and even a few more that don't have articles.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

3000th FA

Would you care to comment on your article, Whitechapel murders, in reference to Wikipedia:FCDW/3000? As in, what you feelings were working on the article? Regards, ResMar 23:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As Malleus Fatuorum said at the featured article candidate page, it's "a daunting task". The nominators of and contributors to all 3000 articles are to be commended for their dedication. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dr Kiernan. Well done you and me! My faith has been restored in the wikipedia...It was very "slings and arrows" at times on that article...Buy you a drink one day...Colin4C (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one of three pieces of good news I've had on this talk page today! DrKiernan (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Coats of Arms

Hi,

I uploaded this for your benefit (just click the Free button), it is a drawing of the Coat of Arms of Prince Albert's Garter stall plate at St. George's chapel Windsor scanned from a book called 'The Royal Heraldry of England' published in 1974, by J.H. Pinces. As I could not upload the image to Wikicommons for various reasons.

Please feel free to drop a word at my talk page if you have any concerns about my images, I would not spend weeks on them and then upload them if I was not a 100% sure that they were factually correct.

BTW as per the full Coat of Arms of the Prince of Wales please see: this, this, this and the Prince's own website

Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks great for Albert.

Of the four web-sites provided for Edward's coat of arms, only this one looks as though it could be relevant, but there's no information with it, so I can't judge whether it applies or not. The other three only appear to relate to Charles not to Edward. Note I am not disputing that these are the arms of Charles, Prince of Wales, I am asking whether you are certain that they apply to Edward. DrKiernan (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Right! Sorry I miss understood. I have been looking for both Edward VIII's and George V's Coat of arms as Princes of Wales for a long time and could not yet find them. I only have the Coat of Arms of Bertie as Prince of Wales. I will continue looking any how, as I plan to draw all the copies of the COA of the Princes of Wales through the ages and start a page much like: Coat of arms of the Prince of Asturias.

This book seems to give a coat of arms of young Eddie. Are you able to view it? It gives the following description:

Arms—Quarterly : 1st and 4th, gu., three lions passant-guardant in pale or, England; 2nd, or, a lion rampant within a double tressure flory counter-flory gu., SCOTLAND; 3rd, az. a harp or stringed arg., Ireland ; differenced by a label of three points arg., and in the centre of the said royal arms on an escutcheon of pretence quarterly or and gu. four lions passant guardant counterchanged, Wales; the escutcheon ensigned t>y the coronet of the Heir Apparent.

Crest—On the coronet of the Heir Apparent, a lion statant guardant or, crowned with the like coronet, and differenced with a label of three points arg.

Badges—On the dexter, a plume of three ostrich feathers arg., enfiled by a coronet composed of fleurs-de-lis and crosses-patée or alternately, and motto, " Ich Dien," being the badge of the Heir Apparent ; on the sinister, on a mount vert a dragon passant wings elevated gu. (being the badge of Wales), differenced with a label of three points arg.

Supporters—Dexter, a lion guardant or crowned with the Heir Apparent's coronet, and differenced by a label of three points arg. ; sinister, a unicorn arg. gorged with a coronet composed of fleurs-de-lis and crosses-patée, therefrom a chain reflexed over the back or, differenced with a label of three points arg.

Motto—Ich Dien

I'll upload the image if it is of any help. Very detailed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't see it, but from the description I take it looks the same as this without the Cornish shield centre bottom? DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Here--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! that's great, could you please upload the image for me? even if its only temporary. Sodacan (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's up. I screwed up the image information, I will do it properly if it is worth keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it, In fact I have already made this exact one, but have not uploaded yet, I will now. Sodacan (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Great work, well done both. DrKiernan (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filair plane crash

Please can you detail exactly how you determined this Afd was a keep. Several of the keep votes are simply proveably wrong, if not all of them, and they never once that I can see, countered the NOT#NEWS argument. If you could give a detailed analysis of your reasoning, with actual reference to what people said and to our actual policies, that would be grand, because I am not seeing how, on strength of argument, this is remotely a keep. Your point about transwiki also confuses me, I had no idea that I had to recommend a transwiki to wikinews to get a NOT#NEWS article deleted. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The arguments revolve solely around the fifth notability criterion of presumption. That states that editors should reach consensus on whether a topic is inappropriate for a stand-alone article. There is no consensus that the article violates WP:NOT, so I presume that the subject is suitable for inclusion.

Generally, very recent events are only covered by news sources, but that does not mean that we should exclude events on that basis. We can include them on the presumption that they will become notable. For some events it may become apparent quickly that the event is a trivial one, but in the absence of consensus that it is trivial (and the presence of reasonable argument that it is not trivial), it is only possible to disprove presumption after the event has passed from the recent to the historic without great coverage. So, in my reading of the policy, recent events may be included as stand-alone articles until they have passed into obscurity or there is a new consensus on how the material should be treated.

My secondary sentence is advice to you on how to proceed in future. You may have more success in obtaining your goal by adopting a less combative approach and working towards a consensus. "What a tragedy, but shouldn't we move this to wikinews for now?" is more likely to gather support than a frontal assault. DrKiernan (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2. MickMacNee (talk)

As a side note from a Wikinews sysop, Wikipedia content cannot be transwiki'd to Wikinews due to licensing issues. Wikinews is CC-SA 2.5 and Wikipedia CC-BY-SA 3.0. The SA of the license disallows transwikis, but of course news articles are best reserved for Wikinews. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, about photographs

Hi! We've discussed Allan Warren's photographs several days ago at my talk page. You might be interested in Talk:Sophia Loren#Images, which is similar to the issue we've discussed. Surtsicna (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and harassment

You know, considering you have more reverts to Goulston Street graffito than I do it's pretty obnoxious to add a template to my page accusing *me* of edit warring. If you are trying to say edit warring is bad, why *you* doing it? Is it a question of thinking rules do not apply to you? Trying to game the system? So caught up in your misplaced feelings of article ownership that you don't see that you are calling the kettle black?

Posting deceptive, self-serving warning templates to my page when it's clear you don't really care about violating the warning yourself is harassment, pure and simple. Do not post to my talk page again unless you are willing to follow the same behaviors you pretend to want to try to enforce. DreamGuy (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted you three times, and you've reverted me three times. You've also blanked referenced, relevant material, and called me a vandal. I really don't know why you hate me so much, I've tried in the past to engage you, and you have responded to that with insults and a refusal to compromise. The rules do apply to me, and I follow them. You should do the same. DrKiernan (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia

The article Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We love our Queen ...

Why duplicate at length the stuff about 1992? Lead paragraphs are just meant to be summary introductions.

I am not sure about the use of the word 'style' either. It may be archaically correct but I am not sure the readership would understand it without definition.

Is there a topic on that use to link to? Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the talk page discussion, I already suggested reducing it to "Between 1992 and 1996, three of her children divorced. After the 1997 death of her former daughter-in-law Diana, Princess of Wales, Elizabeth was criticised for remaining in seclusion until the day before Diana's funeral." but the other editors disagree. I do think you cut too much because not mentioning Diana at all in the lead doesn't adequately summarise either the article or the Queen's life.

You can read more about styles at Style of the British sovereign. DrKiernan (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Thumb&Quotation.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Thumb&Quotation.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear DrKiernan

Please read my comment on the "Anna Anderson" talk page. Thank you. >A loyal editor 74.101.236.156 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the fact that you are trying to incorporate my facts with the article, the result is not what it was intended. It still incorporates Anna Anderson in close relation to the film, which is inaccurate. I will work to make this correct. >A loyal editor 74.101.236.156 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt

You are partaking in the edit war as well, actually reviving it after it settled down to allow the discussion to take place. Do not incite edit warring when you are aware a discussion is ongoing to resolve the issue. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, Xander. You make yourself look like a fool when you carry on like this. DrKiernan (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Because two editors who are admittedly unfamiliar with heraldry wish to argue heraldic points, yes, I guess I was foolish to think I could explain it to them. However, you seem to have an interest in heraldry, what is your excuse? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One editor unfamiliar with heraldry. I have admitted no such thing--and nor will I, as I am quite familiar with the subject. Perhaps not to your level of expertise, which really just means it would behoove you to provide the very simple reference I am asking for. Your continued refusal, despite being asked quite directly several times, indicates to me that there is no such reference and it is merely your not only unsupported but directly contradicted by known fact opinion. → ROUX ₪ 09:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You know full well that there is no law regarding heraldry of individuals in the United States. So, frankly it seems anyone can use any heraldic device they wish, with the exception of official heraldry used by federal authorities, which is protected by law and cannot be used. So, I don't think Roosevelt ever used these embellishments because they are protected by law and cannot be used by individuals in a private capacity. The only "heraldry" is what individuals themselves use. You've provided no evidence that Roosevelt ever used these embellishments, which makes it "original research". DrKiernan (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Who claimed he did? And the use of seals are generally only restricted. However, not so restricted that we can not post images of such things on Wikipedia, so it really comes down to the capacity in which they are used, if meant to defraud, which this is not a case of. And you should know then that heraldry isn't always about what was actually used, with the amount of arms attributed to persons and arms that are awarded after death. If you have any interest in heraldic art, you likely have seen arms displayed with embellishments like swords and spears and flags and canons place behind the shield, not as part of the blazon, but merely for decoration. Wreaths are commonly added as well. You may also have seen some depictions which add various company shields around a larger central personal shield for embellishment. So you should be able to at least add to the conversation that the image breaks no tradition, but rather is based off a history of similar design. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But these embellishments are your own, not Roosevelt's. The arms should not be embellished by anything that Roosevelt did not himself add to his arms. It is a little like me painting a pimple on the face of Barack Obama's official photograph, and saying "Well, people always have pimples and it's his real face, so what's the problem?" The problem is he doesn't have a pimple there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all the same, there is precedence for what is in the image. The Niagara Herald has created several works with personal arms embellished by the arms of corporations. There is Fox-Davies who talks about external embellishments being common, which I added to the Roosevelt page. Then the arms of Captain James Cook were linked for historic example, and work of Anthony Wood and Marco Foppoli were also linked for modern examples. Heraldic tradition and practice is hardly comparable to defacing an image. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly the same; look at it logically:

Embellishments can occur on arms. Roosevelt's arms are arms. Embellishments can be put on Roosevelt's arms.

Pimples can occur on faces. Obama's face is a face. Pimples can be put on Obama's face.

A can occur on B. C is a B. Hence, A can be put on C.

You think this is logical, but I think it is false, since occur ≠ put. For your image to be validly used on wikipedia you need to show "A has occurred on C", "Pimples have occurred on Obama's face", "Embellishments have occurred on Roosevelt's arms".

On wikipedia, it is original research by synthesis to link two concepts that have not been previously linked by a reliable source. This applies to both text and images. Note the wording of Wikipedia:No original research#Original images: "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". You are introducing a new idea by adding new embellishments to arms where they have not been used previously. DrKiernan (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Roosevelt page did not decide, nor is it the appropriate place to decide, original research. The talk page is about what is appropriate to add to that article, and the discussion was to add the colour image and the bookplate, which means there is no reason to edit the colour since the bookplate there as duel reference. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you dislike the correct version created by Beyond My Ken? DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The consensus, however, is quite clear: no embellishments. And you yourself admitted it was original research when you said, direct quote, "the embellishments, while not used by Roosevelt."→ ROUX ₪ 17:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It was not created by Beyond My Ken, I own the copyright, so get that straight. If the version Ken remixed is correct, and all he did was remove part of the background, then by default the original must have been correct. I never claimed the image was used by Roosevelt, that isn't even the issue. The arms on Elizabeth II article were not used by her, are you trying to remove those? What about the images on the other royal and noble articles that were never used by those individuals, removing them? No. You are persecuting this because you IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed to have created the image, simply to have altered your original -- which was released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, which allows derivative works such as mine -- to remove the embellishments which made the image original research, thus rendering it suitable for use on en.Wiki.

You seem to think I have some animus towards you or your work, but nothing can be farther from the truth. I did not know you or your work before this issue came up -- brought up by the question of another editor, not by me -- and I have at no time attempted to stop your work from being used in the article, with the sole exception of the part of the image which violated wikipedia policy. Had I some beef against you, I would think that I would be using my energy to try to remove your work entirely from the article, but I have not, and will not do so -- and that's because I am not motivated by anything but the desire that the article convey accurate information and conform to our policies.

I've worked all my professional life around performing artists, so I do understand that criticism, perceived or real, can be difficult to deal with, but I think you need to realize that it's only a small part of your construction that's being objected to, and then not on artistic or heraldic grounds, but only on the basis of Wikipedia policy. You seem to be taking this personally, and there was nothing whatsoever personal about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By uploading the image to Wikipedia you have explicitly released portions of your copyright; you don't own it anymore. Your logic is flawed; your version included elements that you yourself admit Roosevelt never used. BMK removed those elements. There is no COA on Elizabeth II, and even if there were (there used to be), such a depiction did not and would not include elements that HM has never used. This has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT (though it does, interestingly, have a hell of a lot to do with WP:ILIKEIT); as has been explained to you repeatedly by quite a lot of people now, you are trying to include elemtns which are not supported by any references. I may as well upload a picture of Buckingham Palace to the relevant article, adding camels sauntering about the forecourt as a measure of 'artistic licence.' No reference would support that image, and readers would be left thinking that camels had indeed been wandering around on the day that photo was taken. By the same token, your embellishments will undeniably lead readers to assume that Roosevelt did indeed add such things to his arms when by your own admission he did no such thing. → ROUX ₪ 19:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

@Xanderliptak: I feel compelled to tell you that by restoring your original image to the article, in the face of a clear consensus against it and warnings not to do so, you have taken a step on a perilous journey. You've been blocked in the past for edit warring, and it seems you're determined to be blocked again now, since that seems the inevitable result if you continue, especially when your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior is starting to become disruptive. Please reconsider your course of action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, he's started an AN/I thread on this here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I just don't understand why Xander dislikes the version of the arms in the article accepted by everyone else. DrKiernan (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My guess? Because he makes a living from drawing arms. → ROUX ₪ 21:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a given: http://www.alexanderliptak.com/. DrKiernan (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know.. visited the site yesterday. Some of his statements there show a fairly tenuous grasp of heraldic practice. → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy DrKiernan's Day!

User:DrKiernan has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as DrKiernan's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear DrKiernan! Peace, Rlevse 00:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Insults

First off, as per this edit summary: WP:AGF and WP:NPA before your comments end up on WP:ANI.

Secondly, try to keep your finger off the revert button just long enough to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)