User talk:DBD/Archive 5

February – April 2007

Never Mind The Buzzcocks pages
Wow, you're good at editing them pages. --Antster1983 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers! – DBD 23:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

BRoy Assessments
Glad to help out. Mocko13 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Duke of York.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Duke of York.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 01:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Berger
Like the idea of a KEGS-wiki, though it would be forced out of business by the libel claims within 6 months! Holland House, eh? Tindal myself, but before your time... which I why I recognise none of the names on your list of KEGS "worthies"! Bencherlite 12:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Katharine of Aragon
Hello there. Just wondering if you could give some advice on a debate on the Catherine of Aragon page regarding the spelling of her name. There is some heated discussion on the discussion page, could you drop by and add your thoughts?? CheersPaul75 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for you contribution to the debate, greatly appreciated! Paul75 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Work-group
According to WikiProject British Royalty, BRoy is for British Royalty since the accession of George I. I have consequently removed people who do not fall into this category, i.e. Henry VI, Henry VIII, Louis IV of Hesse, Christian of Schleswig-Holstein and the Battenbergs. I have ADDED people who were missing, i.e. Prince Andrew, the York girls, the Duchesses of Cornwall and Gloucester, Alexandra of Denmark, Victoria (Princess Royal), Princess Caroline Elizabeth, Augusta of Cambridge and Prince Alexander John of Wales. I've left in the children of Christian and Helena Schlewig-Holstein as Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were given special titles by George V after losing their German ones. DrKiernan 07:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Casualty Episodes
The article is a list of episodes it should have all the episodes not just the first three series, however, I agree that the article becomes very long. However, the list of the simpsons episodes is a long article, so there are long lists on wikipedia. Do you think it would be good to have each series of casualty on a separate page, thus all episodes could be listed but that article wouldn't become too long? Dannyboy3 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my solution was to group series such that roughly 100 episodes are on each page, in the same format as List of Holby City episodes... DBD 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie of York edit
May I ask why you removed the birth date age template from the Princess Eugenie article?? Tabercil 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you may! DBD 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your answer? I think Tabercil asked a perfectly polite and reasonable question about why you keep reverting when others add birth date and age to the articles of British Royalty.  This is a template that is accepted in many wikipedia articles about living people.  --rogerd 01:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok, keep your wikihat on. I was in a particularly jolly mood, so provided a merely frivolous response. I have no problem with Tab or answering him. I keep reverting it because its presence in the BR infobox not been discussed or agreed. If you think it should be there, then head there and propose it. DBD 01:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is necessary. It is used in conjunction with many other bio infobox variants without having to be approved by a committee.  What is your objection to it?  --rogerd 02:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Princes George and Philip
...are both Oldenburgs, which is not something the general public thinks about. If George and Anne had an heir, then Philip would never be there. Most people don't know that Denmark was a prime choice and still is when it comes to the Protestant marriage arrangement. If Philip and Elizabeth failed, it is not unlikely that there would be another Oldenburg marriage. Les Invisibles 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Award
Thank you for all your edits! Saber girl08 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review
I reviewed you. YechielMan 03:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Duke of York Revert
re I don't think it was right calling that a vandal, it appeared to be a good faith edit, by a established wikipedian, who is perhaps not familiar with titles. Cheers Brian | (Talk) 07:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. I seem to be seeing republicans. Whoops, lol. V sorry. DBD 08:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

F*ck Off
Inappropriate use of warning template --The Right Honourable Bonney Eberndu 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Royal "surname
Hello DBD;

The surname may possibly be worthy of note elsewhere in the articles, particularly each individual's use of it or any form of it. However, I object to its inclusion in the first lines of the article. All of the official stuff goes up there and W/M-M is not an official surname. Rather, officially, it is explicitly the surname for the male-line descendants of HM The Queen who are not princes or princesses. Whether or not it has been used in marriage banns can be stated further down. Inserting a name into such a document where it is not really a surname will not make it a surname though. If I recall correctly, Anne's driving licence had the name "Anne P" (P for princess), but we don't have that as her name in her article. It isn't so with Mountbatten-Windsor and Windsor as well. Charles 15:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

EastEnders
Ouch! Thanks for the polite slapping on that one. I am normally quite well versed in British-English spelling and I am usually the first to revert edits on British articles incorrectly converted to American-English, but I had not realised that the medical world was also still separated by the same body of water :) -- Richard D. LeCour ( talk / contribs ) 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lord Culloden
Thanks for that. I never thought a Member of the British Royal Family, minor I know, would be called Xan! Keep up your good edits. --86.3.114.157 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Princess moves and redirects
I've only watched one of the dabs, not the nobility pages in general. Can you tell me where the moves and selections of primary topics for Princess Beatrice and Princess Alexandra were discussed? -- JHunterJ 00:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They weren't, I used the Special:Whatlinkshere function to determine whether each current princess was generally meant in links, and found that almost all of the links pointing to Princess Beatrice and Princess Alexandra were links to the current princesses, so I redirected and dab'd. DBD 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift reply. I see what you mean.  And thanks for adding the response to the articles' talk pages too. -- JHunterJ 00:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not post text copied from other websites
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to List of Waterloo Road episodes. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:List of Waterloo Road episodes with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:List of Waterloo Road episodes with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:List of Waterloo Road episodes saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your original contributions are welcome.

Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover
I'm the user who has corrected the date of Ernest Augustus's removal from the Garter roll a couple of times, and wanted to clarify that I'm certainly not trying to vandalize the site. While the peerages of the Anglo-German princes weren't revoked until 1919, amending the Garter roll required no Parliamentary procedure, and was done simply by royal command on 13 May 1915. I have a copy of George V's order, given under sign manual, on my desk, and the full text and date also appear in The Most Noble Order of the Garter, London, 1999, p. 270. - James, 21 April 2007.
 * Ok, then, that's great! Could you please add a reference to that effect then, i.e. sourcing the date to The Most Noble... p270? Cheers! DBD 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)