User talk:Seisal

Image tagging for Image:Hohenberg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hohenberg.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bailey

Hi there. As you know this article was recently deleted in a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion review, after a consensus had been reached by a majority of contributors. I know this because I originally nominated it for deletion. Do you mind if I ask why have you re-created the article? I feel it only fair to say that I consider the reason for deletion to have been valid, and furthermore that the overall tone and style of your re-creation is against the spirit of the Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The Boy that time forgot 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept fully all the views expressed previously and as some have suggested I should rewrite it which I have done. Consensus was tested in relation to the previous article which having studied the Wikipedia policies I accept. I changed it considerably. Even you admitted it was considerably better in your comments on the later article. He meets the requirements for notability, I have answered all the other questions asked by the community and verified all the information I have sourced about him as is required. Could you therefore be a little more explicit as to your problems with the current article. It would be more helpful instead of blanket removal to help me turn this into an article that answers any remaining queries. with best regards. Seisal

Take this to deletion review. – Steel 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to deletion review. – Steel 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I see the article has been speedily deleted so this is now an academic discussion. Nevertheless, in response to the points you raise, my main objection to the article, in all its formats, was that it was insufficiently neutral in tone. The whole piece came across as a piece of PR fluff. I think if you revisit my comments in the original AFD review you will see that did at no stage did I admit it was considerably better in (my) comments on the later article. I have never questioned the notability of the individual despite never having heard of him before stumbling across the original piece, no suprise as I have never moved in such exhalted circles. If he is notable someone else will start an article, someone else will add material and it will evolve. Slightly less flattering facts may also appear and that is as it should be. I see that all of your contributions to Wikipedia are related to Anthony Bailey, The House of Hohenburg and Painting and Patronage, closely related subjects. This may suggest to some that you have close connections to Mr Bailey and therefore your objectivity when contributing in this area may be called into question. This is how it seems to me and of course, I may be wrong. All the very best now. The Boy that time forgot 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HE Anthony Bailey

Could you please explain what "HE" means? Are those his initials, or is that a title? Corvus cornix 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found in his bio that he is also an Ambassador of Gambia to EU and also a Delegate of the Constantinian Order both of which the HE would apply. Can be removed but was trying to make separate from Anthony Bailey the author.

Wikipedia standards don't allow for honorifics in article titles. Maybe Anthony Bailey (politician), or something like that? Corvus cornix 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An SVG version of Hohenberg.jpg

Hi!

The Original coat of arms
The SVG version that i made

i have recently created an SVG version of your coat of arms, and i wish to hear your opinion about it. --Oren neu dag (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Hohenberg

The coat of arms is that of the House of Austria-Este (Habsburg-Este) and was used by Archduke Francis Ferdinand, not by his wife and children, who were excluded from the Austrian succession. A separate coat of arms was created for them. Please rename the image.--Alexvonf (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Seisal! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 311 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Georg, Duke of Hohenberg - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Franz, Duke of Hohenberg

The article Franz, Duke of Hohenberg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.