User talk:DBD/Archive 1

July 2005 – July 2006

Image:Doctor10-parting.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Doctor10-parting.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

This is a currently unused image --Tim Pope 13:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kegschelmsford-front2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kegschelmsford-front2005.jpg. 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 on Wikipedia 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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yo!

Hey there, Michael Lloyd here. Just discovered this profile after I somehow found my way to the KEGS wiki. Why am I not surprised that the likes of you and Stefan Franzek (or however you spell it) are doing a KEGS entry? :p -- Jayunderscorezero 16:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just thought I'd introduce myself - I'm John from holby.tv. Nice to see someone other than me doing some work on the casualty pages! --John24601 21:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I've reformatted your userboxes in a more manageable table format and removed some deleted userboxes while I was at it. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)}

Minor Edit?

Just thought I'd mention that your extensive edit of Elizabeth II of United Kingdom (which I think improves the article quite a bit) was marked as a minor edit. You may have set your edits to automatically be minor in preferences and forgotten. Also, it is easier to see the changes made (and possibly easier to write) if such extensive edits are done in bits, but that's really a matter of personal preference.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I noticed, just as I hit submit, that it was hardly a minor edit... Thankyou for your kind compliment, and your comment about editting in sections - in this case, what with moving paragraphs between sections, your advice would not have been sutiable, but I shall bear it in mind in future -- DBD 23:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Im sorry but I am not reverting my edits. As you yourself say Wikipedia is a free encylopedia anyone can edit. I felt, and still feel, you edits with regards to the Issue box were not in fitting with Wikipedia. I feel they look like they belong on a Genealogy website, which Wikipedia is not. I feel there is no need to have the person's issue in a seperate section, and specially not at the end of page, where they look out of place. On pages, like George I's where they are in a seperate space it is usually where there are lots of children. When they only have a few children (like Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, George VI etc), they look fine in the marriage section of these people's pages, and not in a box in a totally seperate section. This is have been for some time, and I feel that before such a widespread change you should have consulted other people, for you changed the layout of many people's pages without prior consultation. In addition, the Coats of Arms of some people you enlarged, and again this seems unnecssary. I would not wish to put you off, and some of edits have been useful, but I felt that these particular edits were unneccessary. --Berks105 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

I have recently been contributing a lot to the British royalty articles, and all of my edits have been reverted - primary discussion has not gone well (ref: User talk:Berks105#Royals_template; User talk:DBD#Reverts) -- DBD 21:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello DBD/Archive 1, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your troubles edit reversion. I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 23:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help you. I'll read what I can about this dispute on the relevant talk pages and edit summaries. When its convenient, feel free to contact me though my talk page or the email user function. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I gather you want to add a table that shows the children that royals have had and Berks doesn't want the table, instead prefering to discuss the children in plain text. You added it to a bunch; He removed it. Your other contributions seem undisputed. Also from what I can tell, the many royalty featured articles do not have such a section. That's a problem: you should be bold, at least until someone disagrees with your changes. I suggest a centralized place of discussion. Unfortunately, there is no WikiProject in the area of royalty. You can start such a discussion in your userspace though, perhaps: User:DBD/Royalty style guidelines. Lay out your proposal there: exactly how you think such a section should be formatted, the articles it should apply to, and the benefits of organizing the material in this fashion. Then either create a separate section for other users to discuss it, or invite them to do so on the talk page. Hope this helps. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to say I reverted "all" of your edits is simply not true. All I did was to revert where you had put a box with the issue at the bottom of the page. As I explained above I felt this was unecessary. I did not revert all your edits. --Berks105 09:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

British userboxes...

Please read the note at the top of the page Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics; we aren't allowing new userbox templates to be created, and we're in the process of deleting the old ones. --Cyde↔Weys 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

Saw your new WikiProject and I just wanted to let you know that the Biography WikiProject has been reorganized and we wanted to see if you guys were interested in merging with us? We've reorganized it so that it's more like the Military history project with task forces for the specialized areas. One of the task forces we could create could be Royalty-- by merging with us and becoming a task force, you wouldn't lose anything! You'd keep your same page here, it would just be redirected to Royalty task force (which we'd create) and you would continue as before, except that instead you'd also gain the benefits of being part of a larger project. We would give you a parameter to our Project banner (royalty-task-force=yes) and a note would appear that says the article is a part of that task force (see example on military history article), plus having peer reviews and collaborations, and being able to grade articles by class and importance so that the articles can be part of the WP:1.0 project and much more... Let me know what you think! If you are interested, you need to add your name to the Royalty task force vote we're currently having -- plange 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My reply