User talk:Xanderliptak/Archive 1

''' This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, kindly do so on the current talk page. '''

Roosevelt
You put a coat of arms on a disambiguation page, e.g. a page that's supposed to be just links. I moved it to Roosevelt Coat of Arms, but you may want to move it to Roosevelt Family. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I must admit confusion as to why you think Roosevelt can not be a stand alone article.  Especially if you have taken the time to look through some of the other surname articles that exist.  While still new and under construction, it already provides more sources and information than most all other surname articles.  Roosevelt also has notability, as the famous people that hold it.  The Roosevelt family page, though, is not a proper destination for origins and such, and would surely be removed in time.  Is the issue really the painting, then?   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  02:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, what I meant was merge the coat of arms article into the Roosevelt Family article, which hasn't been done yet. Vous comprenez? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand you suggested the merger at this time. It was also you that tagged it for deletion.  So my lack of understanding still persists as to why you believe this particular article can not exist as stand alone.  Initially you said that you thought I created the article to promote a painting and thus wanted the article deleted.  I was curious if that is the only reason, or if you truly believe that Roosevelt is a surname that lacks any notability.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  03:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that. What I do believe is that the Coat of Arms lack notability. Merging two articles together doesn't mean you dislike both of them. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That was why I thought the article was poorly named and should be made a surname page. It was not my suggestion on creating a purely coat of arms centred article. While it has been decided all the information be merged into the Roosevelt family page, expanding that article to cover another Van Rosevelt family that may not even be realted seems odd.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Lily replaced beaver
Please see Talk:Coat of arms of Montreal for explanations. There were two links in the reference notes, one leading to an article, the second to an image. I presume you followed only the second link and concluded there was no source. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy arms
You replaced an image of the Kennedy arms with an image created by Joseph McMillan, however the person that uploaded it is not Mr. McMillin and therefore has no right to release it to the public domain. The details in the image contradict themselves, claiming the uploaded made it, but at the same time it was authored by Mr. McMillan. That image would also need to be deleted and a free one found. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK   09:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise that. I think you could be right. It better go up for copyright violation.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure seems like it, judging by the copyright alerts on that user's talkpage.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to talk to Mr. McMillan about releasing his images a couple months ago, but he never responded to my request. He was more interested in linking back to his articles on the AHS.  That was why I made the ones I did, I figured them better then nothing for the moment.  I am not familiar with marking images for any violations, so if you could do such, I would appreciate the effort.  [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK   09:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have talked with Mr. McMillan in heraldry forums some, and nothing on that users page matches up with that of Mr. McMillan's-from the age, to the coat of arms. I am confident that the user is not Mr. McMillan. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK   09:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to completely release your illustrated arms, maybe you could make simple svg arms to improve articles you're interested in. Like the heraldry of the O'Neills. It is pretty easy, you just need a program like Inkscape (which is free). On the Commons there is a huge collection of arms made in svg format. It is easy to find most elements, you just pull them off other coats and attribute the author (or this is useful just click on the appropriate category). I made one a little while ago Arms of Daubeney.svg. Anyways, stuff on the commons can be used by all the different language wikipedias.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made simpler designs and released them fully, but I do not like clip art to make coat of arms, it takes away from teh style and thus appeal of it all. Heraldry is an art, and I thought if I had a couple nice examples, then let those be used, even if in limited fashion. I know Wikipedia likes totally free content, and I understand the purpose and reasoning, but then there are those that could take advantage of another's work for gain, which I wished to avoid that possibility on the more time consuming efforts. I will avoid this conflict int he future and simply make the less time consuming versions for the public domain. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK   10:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, i'd like to help if i can. This could be helpful for images, it shows which templates to place on suspect or problem images Guide to image deletion. I don't think you need a template to merge images into other articles, but if you meant merging content, like sections or articles with other articles, here is a page on the process Help:Merging, and here's a page on specific templates to put on articles you wish to merge with others or proprose Template:Merge. I think that if you make a post on the article's talkpage and explain your reasoning you can actually just go ahead and merge or re-name articles.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you have been helpful to me, so I was wondering if I could ask a couple of questions. First, if I come across an image that may have copyright issues, how do I mark that? And second, how do I mark an entry to suggest it be merged with another article? [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK   00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping and pointing me to the right pages. I appreciate your time and efforts.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Uí Néill
I am uncertain why you call the move of the Ui Néill page information to O'Neill dynasty a total misunderstanding. And why you also called my cleanup of the disambiguation page the same. How is better arrangement of the disambiguation page a total misunderstanding? How is putting the Ui Néill information on the O'Neill dynasty page a misunderstanding, being that the O'Neill dynasty begins with Ui Néill and expand out. Could you please explain? [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  08:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize you were editing in total good faith but you should have read the articles more carefully. By moving and redirecting you were excluding a number of other dynasties which also belong to the Uí Néill, for example the O'Donnell dynasty and Doherty family. The O'Neill dynasty take their name from the much later Niall Glúndub and not from Niall of the Nine Hostages, his ancestor. Niall Glúndub belonged to the Cenél nEógain, named after Eógan mac Néill, son of Niall of the Nine Hostages. The O'Donnells, on the other hand, descend from the Cenél Conaill and Conall Gulban, another son of Niall of the Nine Hostages. Furthermore, these are only the extant Ulster dynasties. There were a number of immensely strong dynasties and figures dwelling to the south who belonged to the Uí Néill, especially the Clann Cholmáin, which is long defunct. DinDraithou (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that O'Neill name comes from a descendant of Niall of the Nine Hostages, I was the one that added that clarification in the surname origin between the two Nialls. But, O'Neill does claim decent from Niall of the Nine Hostages, so the dynasty would seemingly begin there, even if the name came later. I thought I would, and it will take me some time, add a section for Ui Niell and explain everything to the point of O'Neill, and mention the other dynasties that arose and include an in-text link. The only reason I wish to add all information to one page is so that people researching that are unfamiliar with the differences in spelling and such can go to one page and find it all, as well as links to the other dynasties. The O'Neill collection of articles is very departmentalized, and each article includes a couple paragraphs scattered here and there. I thought a complete history from Niall of the Nine Hostages to the present era would become a quite expansive, definitive and flagship article. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely there is a need to merge the O'Neill articles (I added the tags) and I think introing the article with a discussion of the Uí Néill kindred is necessary. However, the Uí Néill article needs to remain independent not only because of the other extant dynasties but because of the innumerable references to the greater kindred in literature. Remember also that the Uí Néill are said to be offshoots of the Connachta and we can hardly merge them too. DinDraithou (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea was not to merge every slightly related article and offshoot, but just to follow the O'Neill dynasty back as far as possible. You would not object to that, so long as the other articles are left intact? [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I would love to see that and have wished to. If you have the energy to do it that's wonderful. Also have a look at Count of Tyrone for a lot of new material and this-and-that which the O'Neill dynasty article should contain. It appears members or their relations have been editing it. DinDraithou (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It will take some time to finish, and might be rather shoppy for a bit, but can be done. Just bear with me on it, and help keep a watch to make sure no one reverts pages and such completely, if that is not too much trouble. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No trouble at all. I'm happy to help keep watch, and if I have any inspirations I might even contribute a little. Unfortunately my only special area is Munster so I haven't been able to do much for the Ulster families. DinDraithou (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

O'Neills of Puerto Rico
I am reverting your redirect to O'Neill dynasty because the original version of the former had far more content than the short section in the latter. If you still think it should be a redirect, please discuss on the talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

List of heads of state and government by net worth
I am trying to decide if I like the changes you made to the List of heads of state and government by net worth page, although I am uncertain why you would have made such a major change with (as near as I can tell) zero discussion about it.

That said, I do have an issue with what you did with ERII's entry. Currently, you have her listed as Queen of the UK and the Commonwealth Realms. This, to me, some how suggests that the UK is more important than the other Realms. As a Canadian, Her Majesty is just as much my Head of State as she is for someone living in the UK.

I think it is totally appropriate to list each of the other Commonwealth Realms as CLEARLY no one Realm is subordinate to the other. I will begin a discussion on the discussion page and am very tempted to revert the changes you have made until there IS some discussion..?Dphilp75 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean by major change. I assume it is the use of full titles?  I did not feel using colloquial terms was appropriate, as there seems to be no rhyme and reason to such uses.


 * As for HM's governments, listing all of them seems a bit excessive. I mean, no one is going to read the list and wonder which Elizabeth II, and then see Queen of Tuvalu and exclaim, "Oh! That Elizabeth II."  Using the UK and only referring to the Commonwealth is not meant to be a subordination, jsut a time-old practice of placing the senior title first and also based off the form that Elizabeth herself used.  I was considering adding Canada to the list, actually, because it is the second most senior title in her retinue.  The only reason I didn't was because I figured I would hear responses of, "If Canada is added, why not Australia?  It is as important as Canada."  Then requests of New Zealand.  Then Papua New Guniea, and Jamaica.  Then with half included, people would say it is only appropriate to add the other half.


 * I am actually good friends with a guy who French-Canadian on his mother's side and First Nations on his father's, so I have a sense of how sensitive these national and social issues are to Canadians. I am trying to be as unbiased as possible.  It just seems unnecessary to me to list sixteen nations every time HM is mentioned.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  16:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I may have misread the changes made, I'll dig in a little deeper and get back to you on that. However, in regards to ERII's being listed as head of which state, you are correct in saying that there is a tradition of using her most ancient realm first, but such traditions are largely gone by since the introduction of the Statute of Westminster, which categorically points out that no Realm shall be subordinate to another. My preference is to list them all, but I do understand your point, so what if we to were compromise and list ONLY the link to the Commonwealth Realms? Dphilp75 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) *Addition, also, there was substantial discussion on the discussion page as to which of her titles were approprate to list.. We may want to continue this discussion there.


 * Ah, under 'fantasy titles', no? I looked past that because the heading seemed irrelevent.  I will put the suggestion there and change HM country simply to the link for the Commonwealth and see how it plays out.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  19:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hello. I've got a request. There's absolutely no pressure though. I just put Leod up for a WP:DYK so hopefully it'll get on the mainpage for a bit. Part of it concerns heraldry. I think a comparison of the current arms and the older arms is relevant to the article. The two images used now don't look all that good together though. I think you could improve on the arms and make two consistent shields, like you did for at O'Neill dynasty. The blazon for the current arms can be seen at John MacLeod of MacLeod; the one for the Armorial de Berry shield is Azure, a castle triple-towered Argent (it's titled "Le sire de bes" in the roll, even though today it is considered to represent a MacLeod). No pressure though.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you happen to know if the crest for the older arms is the same for the crest of the newer arms? I am sure I could find it somewhere if you are uncertain, though.  But thought I shoudl ask if you knew offhand.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  08:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That particular one on the roll doesn't have a crest. The roll just recorded the shields. The Leod article is just concerned with the shields anyways, so i think just the shields of the two needed. But elsewhere, like on the individual chief articles, could use the crest, supporters and all that.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you find these acceptable. [[Image:Coat of arms of Hugh Magnus MacLeod of MacLeod by Alexander Liptak.png|65px]] [[Image:Coat of arms of John MacLeod of MacLeod by Alexander Liptak.png|35px]] [[Image:Coat of arms of the MacLeods of Harris and Dunvegan by Alexander Liptak.png|35px]] [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Especially the full achievement. Yours are much more bold and eye catching than the digital ones. Thanks for helping with the Leod page, the arms make it alot more interesting. Happy holidays :).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wanted to take some of the pixelation off the image, the castle looked a bit ragged I thought. But, yes, I agree, they did not turn out any better.  I will be reverting them later.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  01:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How come you switched to fuzzier images? IMO the prior versions were so much better.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

List of wealthiest historical figures‎
I have been the one reworking the page from the incoherent thing it was previously, but noticed you mentioned that you would prefer a better chronological order. I was wondering then if you had a suggestion? The page as it was listed pretty much 10 random people by their adjusted net worth, and had no sources for the listed figures or any rhyme or reason for why they picked who they did or why others were left out. So when I was going about adding more people and cleaning up what was there I settled on the Ancient, Old and New World divisions because it was the only thing I could really think of. I still hope to add more people, as the Americas and Asia are underrepresented, so I did not want to do it by European dates then because that does not conform to a World view. If you have an idea, I would be open to hearing it. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  09:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * When I mentioned that I wished that there was a better set of date breakdowns, my concern is just that it seems hard for someone who adds content in the future to know which category it would go into. What if someone lived in 400 CE?  600 CE?  What if they lived in China, which didn't see the collapse of the Roman Empire and has a different concept of what the "ancient world" is?  What if they lived on multiple continents?  For example, currently the entire Rothschild family is listed.  What if a family that was part of a dynasty in multiple places?  I was wondering whether, say, using a global timeline based on, say, birthdate, would make it possible to list people in a single order.  The same clusters that are present in the article now would still more-or-less exist, and I would think that it should be no harder to find people.  Mark7-2 (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose generally that would work, but then what to do with the families? Like the de’ Medici, Lorenzo is the most prominent but Cosimo had the greater wealth. Also, with some figures whose dates are unknown? Or simply list them in some general order without concern for specific dates for certain people? I guess placing the de' Medici just at or around the 15th century with anyone else would not disrupt the list. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  09:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Magnus MacLeod of MacLeod arms at Clan MacLeod
hello, re your excellent drawing of the MacLeod of MacLeod's arms, an error is apparent in the Helmet (heraldry). the helm here: is that of a king. see rarebooks.nd.edu. While helmet use may vary from country to county, usual practice in Scotland is that a clan chief who does not have a noble title should have a helm as that of an esquire (as shown at rarebooks.nd.edu. The helmet for The MacLeod should be that of an esquire. Note also that the helm can not have ermine or gold designs etc. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is an odd helm that I have used, I know, and is actually that of a peer but placed affronte which is rather rare to see (though more common in modern times than in centuries past). I am not familiar with helms for chiefs, but thought that the esquire helm might be beneath a chief and settled with the helm of a noble instead.  Do you have an example of a chief using the esquire helm? because all the chiefs that I know have also hold a place in the peerage.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  19:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes...examples of arms of chiefs using the esquire helm: Nesbitt of That Ilk Chief of Clan Nesbitt and Urquhart of Urquhart, Chief of Clan Urquhart. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is why I have such trouble, they seem to have no consistency. One has a cap and either great helm or lord's helm and the other a titling helm.  Do you believe the barred helm is of much consequence?  I am not all too familiar with Scottish heraldic practices myself.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I did have time today to change the helm to that of an esquire's.  [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  08:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * yes seems better, this helm may interest you : Chief of Clan Cameron. Heraldry can be complicated and I often make mistakes, as well as experts in the field. For example: Chief of Clan MacLea as drawn has the same helm error, it should be a closed helm; "Baron of the Bachuil" is not a noble title but a scottish feudal barony, or Prescriptive barony and usual shown by the ermine cap, see Irvine (who is feudal Baron of Drum) for a correct version. Many chiefs have feudal baronies (MacLeod would no doubt have the barony of Dunvegan) but chose not to have an ermine cap in their arms. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Various coats of arms
Thanks for visiting my collection. It is artistic only, and merely for my pleasure. I gather them as I run across them in my editing of random articles. It is a pleasure to meet you and your ability. If you don't mind I will visit your talk, on occasion, and educate myself to the "practices" of Heraldry. I have been a fan of blazon's etc for years.--Buster7 (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I am fairly knowledgeable with heraldry, so if you think of any questions please do not hesitate to ask.


 * I prefer paintings, but they take much too long to do for articles. I do not like the ununiform clip, art nor do i like the shield being shown while ignoring hte rest of the coat of arms, so i settled making the little paint program drawings.  So now is a good chance to ask someone, how do they look?   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  08:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)