User talk:Jtdirl

Hey Jt - I noticed that you blanked your page... :( I'm also embarrassed to say that I only now just read what your user page said before it was blanked - even though you wrote that back in November. Truth is, that over the last couple years I've transitioned from wikiholism to workaholism and devote minimal time to Wikipedia and since the middle of last year, the foundation. As with you, I don't have time to do much vandal fighting - The only articles I watch are the ones I helped to get featured and my major contributions of late are in trying to improve those articles to current FA standards when they come up for FAR. But, I don't much worry about most of the other articles I've contributed to since my experience over five years (wow - it really has been that long) is that articles of mediocre and lessor quality either stay about the same or improve slowly. Rarely do they significantly degrade for long.

However, as you rightly state, above average and great articles must be watched closely to prevent degradation to mediocrity. That is why I have great hope that the long-sought stable version feature will help us keep quality edits by periodically recognizing good versions; any new edits would have to be compared to the previous stable version before a new stable version is marked. I truly hope that that will give us the edge we need to much more easily defend great content from being edited into mediocrity . When that day comes I hope you can find the time to come back and help us in this most noble of endeavors. Until then, your edits and your presence will be greatly missed by me and I'm sure by many others. Hopefully, those damn annoying bots will be fixed by then as well. :)

Your friend,

-- mav 00:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just dropped in to say hello in case you are listening. I've got plenty of "issues" with wikipedia at the moment, and often wish you were still here so I could share them with you. Deb (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mav, Deb and the others who have been in contact.

I must admit that I miss posting enormously. I loved Wikipedia. But towards the end the bot madness just drove me to frustration. I was a prolific poster and as such added in thousands of articles and hundreds of images. It was the images issue that bugged me. I'd upload images using the rules that existed, only to find that one set of templates had been abandoned and a new set, and a new set of rules, introduced. So I'd go through the images again, and then find six months later they'd changed again.

It was one thing when users were contracting people to point out problems with images. But it was quite another when the bot madness started and longstanding posters found their pages absolutely jammed with messages accusing them of using the wrong categorisation when they had used the correct one at the time. I just got fed up, especially when bots were informing me that images that were 100% with the right categorisation were still wrong simply because the technical command used for a graphic had now been changed by it, not by me. If people insist on continually changing rules then it should be THEIR responsibility to fix the problems THEIR decisions cause, rather than having bots blaming people who were innocent of anything.

Most of us posting in my group and my area just got completely fed up and left. Often I would only be back occasionally to check an article, only to find more ludicrous bot messages all over. Sometimes I lost the head completely - I suppose the posts just reminded me of all the frustration I had felt when I ended up leaving. I posted some rather strong comments *blush*. Apologies to anyone who was offended. (I noticed how one person who complained about by use of the f-word to reply to one particularly pointless bot message saying that I should have uploaded something to Commons even though Commons did not take those sort of images at the time the picture was uploaded, a few months later posted back to say that now HE had been hit by the bot madness over a rule change that meant his images were now all wrong and he was accused of putting in wrong templates, and now he realised just how frustrated I felt. He, as I and countless others did, just left the project.)

Anyway, as I said, thank you to everyone for posting supportive comments. I really do miss posting, but I just cannot be bothered dealing with the bot madness any more. I just felt like rolling my eyes when I got a bot message saying that a picture I took of a 100 year old newspaper that ceased to be published before anyone here was born, had copyright problems, when the only problem was that, yet again, the correct tag to use when in 2005 I uploaded the image is now incorrect because a new one has been created, throwing the thousands of images uploaded under the old tag into limbo. I was tempted in frustration to go and delete all the hundreds of images I created, but didn't. lol. But I am not fixing anything. So don't bother posting for me to do it. If images go into limbo because of someone else's decision on changing tags and templates, that is their problem. And if perfectly valid images are deleted and articles turned into a mess, that is their responsibility. I pointed out that problem repeatedly while I was here. I was the one constantly urging that Wikipedia set out rigid rules on images from day 1. That didn't happen, and the result has been a complete mess which I and the others now being blamed for are not going to fix. If Wikipedia had done what we urged years ago, there would not be a problem now.

Enough said. Take care everyone. Thanks for the support. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'll quote the last line of my previous message again.

As to the bots, they can f*** off.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtdirl (talk • contribs)

Amen..Wish you wouldn't have left. Come back? --Veritas (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if i steal this ? It's how just about exactly how i feel about wiki's image policy, Have you considered putting nobot {{bots}} tags on your talk page? Gnevin (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another rubbish message about pictures deleted . . . *sigh* FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Girlband (American band), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlband (American band). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one old hand here to another, I wanted to let you know I'm glad to see you editing again. Raul654 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That editor was blocked by you in 2006 over a legal threat that seems to have been retracted by now, or at least the threatened editor now supports the user's unblock. Could you take a look at the talk page and consider whether or not he's fit to be unblocked, possibly with conditions? Sandstein (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it turns out he's a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer. Sandstein (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vicky.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Captain panda 03:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Irish Unionist Alliance, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Joseph Ratzinger, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Irish Unionist Alliance, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Unionist Alliance and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder this website is now a joke. An article about a political party, with references, is not acceptable. But articles about non-existent countries and cartoon characters are.

This once was a credible website. Now it is a dumbed down laughing stock. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there. I don't want to worsen your already bad relations with Wikipedia, but the guideline on signatures does not allow the use of images. I have notified several editors with images in their signatures, and I always feel bad doing this, given that many of them are actually quite interesting, but there are valid arguments against such practices. For the record, I am not just blindly following the guideline for the sake of enforcing guidelines; I genuinely agree with the reason why this guideline was put in place. (Therefore, don't shoot the messenger—especially when the messenger possesses no bulletproof clothing, and the chances of you hitting his prized pocket watch are very small indeed.)

So that you should know, I have just read your goodbye message and you have my deepest sympathies as far as the image onslaught is concerned. Personally, I am in favour of limited bot activity in Wikipedia and only for cases where no significant harm can be done. The image area is one more or less foreign to me, I admit, but the few images I have uploaded (unrelated to articles) I have done so in the Commons, not here. In any case, if you feel like, you can come over for a chat (I am a good listener on-line, even though I talk a lot in real life). I am always interested in hearing other people's viewpoints about things, especially Wikipedia. (If you are not thrilled at the prospect, we could always discuss naming disputes, which seem to be in vogue nowadays.) Waltham, The Duke of 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above images are not allowed Gnevin (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fear, welcome back. Hope you still have the admin-45 in your pocket ;) Mel, I've left. 78.19.41.167 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should appreciate even the shortest of answers, Jtdirl. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're editing again, If you have any problems, drop a note on my talk page. Raul654 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just popped in to say hello. Nice to see you back on here, too. Hope you'll stay with us awhile. You were missed :) - Alison ^❤ 03:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:INA(ireland).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did you get back? And are you here to stay? I hope so - there have been some awful things going on round the royal naming conventions! Deb (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just wondering why you reverted one of my edits. It was a valid edit as the article is already in a sub-category of that category. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, it happens. Done it myself often enough as well. Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you started Template:Infobox cardinalbiog - I've added some documentation to it as without instructions noone will use it, but I got a bit bored filling in what all the fields did and to be honest I wasn't completely sure what you intended for the "reason" field - would you mind editing it to make it clear? I've no particular interest in cardinals per se, I've just been filling in infoboxes for the Italy Project and figured that if I almost didn't bother using the template for want of a doc, then there must be others in the same boat.... FlagSteward (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating Template:Behave all those months ago. I use it from time to time because it really hits the nail on the head sometimes. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Daly, Cahal Brandan Cardinal.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Doc^g 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As original uploader on the EN project, would you have any thoughts on (or anything to add to) this discussion? Guliolopez (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Davidtimble.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
I see from the article-history that you are the creator of Advice (constitutional), and the person who originally stated that the term is frequently capitalised. There's now a wee dispute about that usage, at the article. An editor has decapitalised in the text, and placed a "fact" tag on the statement that "some constitutional writers, though not all, capitalise the word" (as "frequently capitalised" has become). If you have some input on this, and particularly some references to support that frequent use of capitalisation, please take part in resolving this, at the article. All the best,
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Npa6 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 07:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vbc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 10:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lang5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 10:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tpv5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irish states since 1171 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Rite and Reason, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rite and Reason. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Brianfaulkner.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:Piusxii.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Piusxii.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 23:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Blacktans.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you sign your prsts with four tidles how do you get your name colorful like that?--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MIPblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Behave has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Funnybut has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 08:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blocknumbers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:IrelandsOwn.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blocked user has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Genblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Request denied has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tpv5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Based on your work, I withdrew my speedy delete nomination for Politics.ie -- and even added some WikiProject templates to bring more attention to the page. Congratulations on a job well done! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sockblockdodge has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:303945851sbxQkQ_ph.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter O'Toole is indeed an Irish citizen, with an Irish passport and an Irish father. I gather from you that he feels that being called British is an insult (though his mother was British). What I found odd is your comment that, "simply being born, growing up and working in a place does not make you of that country". Well, that's perhaps plausible. But Mr O'Toole goes further than that. According to the Wikipedia article, his only residence is in London; he speaks with an English accent; is a cricket, rugby and soccer fan (Sunderland); loves Shakespeare's sonnets; and sent his son to Harrow School. Perhaps I move in the wrong circle, but I don't know many Irishmen like that. Do you? Millbanks (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on the criteria for notability of accademic books? If you have time could you comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 09:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Papal conclaves has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Houses of Parliament has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:BookKells.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:BookKells.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:PresIrlCar.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pthcceiling.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Dub PowerscourtTownhouseCentre ceiling.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Dub PowerscourtTownhouseCentre ceiling.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bofiboyne.jpg is now available as Commons:Image:Battle of Boyne tapestry Irish HOL.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ihopcurved.jpg is now available as Commons:Image:Irish Parliament old BOI screenwall.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maryaltar.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Maryaltar.jpg . --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bunker.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Civic Offices on Wood Quay in Dublin.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Healy.jpg is now available as Commons:File:tim healy.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Lee at count.jpg is now available as Commons:File:George Lee at count.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ppsmoke.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nard 19:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:It-liffy-bg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nard 19:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your a big fan of stormont (small capital).[1] You don't know what it's like to live in the north with these people - that institution took (stole) the small piece of land and house, my family owned, off us in 1970 - your sitting cosy in the south - we fought them and we will still keep fighting them. - Cúlnacréann-(talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Irishrep.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pat stone.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are missed. Kingturtle (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Leinster-house.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Piusxiib.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:P6anglican.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC) --Papa November (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:P13-oath.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC) --Papa November (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jp2synogogue.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Leinster-house.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Liamcosgrave.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC) --Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tarahill.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Piusxiii1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image was listed as being under a free license. Before it's moved to Wikimedia Commons, are you able to confrim the original photographer agreed to it's release under the license shown? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JT - Another user just nominated this image for deletion. If you can find the original email, could you copy and paste it to the image's talk page (hashing out the email addresses of course)? --mav (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Honours471a.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You created Template:PofC in 2005, which includes a redlink to Band (crown), which has since never been created. I'd like to remove the link from the template, unless you would like to create this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Charles J. Haughey.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was resolved before your message. — neuro^(talk) 00:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as an aside, you're not allowed to have images in your signature. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously do you bother reading what was added before reverting and then having to re-add it again .Garda40 (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm delighted to announce that we've started a new Ireland Wikimedian email list, that you can join, at mail:WikimediaIE. For Wikimedians in Ireland and Wikimedians interested in events in Ireland and efforts in Ireland. It's there to to discuss meetups, partnerships with Museums and National Archives, and anything else where Wikipedia and real life intersect. Bastique ^demandez 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dermotmorgan.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you around! I hope you've been well ... It looks like we're both back from extended breaks on this website ... I'd appreciate your input on the articles on state and "sovereign state." Wikipedia's articles on the state are an absolute mess now. 172 | Talk 19:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translated or not, the surname is the same (and not considered necessarely as a title): "Saxe-Coburg and Braganza" = "Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" (but in different languages). The article should be moved because this is the WP:EN and the naming conventions for names and titles is use the most common form of the name used in English. Just it, nothing more! Regard this:

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (Portuguese: Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança) (Lisbon, March 13 1907 - Verona, May 6 1995) was the name assumed by a lady who claimed to be an bastard daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal. Etc...

It's about her name, not any title. It's imparcial and everyone can understand. Why are you complicating a simple question as a translation? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirl, I complete agree with you about Maria Pia. The user above is a supporter of Maria Pia's monarchist party and tries to promote her cause by every means in Wikipedia. He has been already blocked in some projects (like WP:PT and WP:FR) and really pushes his point of view – using propaganda material as valid reference, trying to change minor aspects in the text to corroborate her supposed titles, etc. I really think that her allegations, and those from Rosario Poidimani (a professional Syracuse liar), are just it: allegations, and must be treated like that. Other users, like DWC and Nunh-nunh, are making efforts to keep Maria Pia's article impartial. Please, help us. Best regards. --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your great arguments in the debate concerning the article move of Prince Henry of Wales. The result is really a shame since there is no "Prince Harry of Wales", which makes the current name even worse than had it been simply "Prince Harry" or even "Harry the nazi" or whatever. I hope you will continue to pursue this. --Law Lord (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jtdirl, is Dublin Airport convenient to where you are? If so, would you mind photographing the headquarters of Aer Lingus and Ryanair? Those articles need images of their headquarters. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, great to see you back - I've often wished you would come back (as you can imagine). I was actually in Dublin in June, first-ever visit. Lovely place, but too many tourists!

I'm not surprised about the researchers. I was talking to Barbara Levick a while back, and she was telling me how thrilled she is to have an article about her in wikipedia. She had no idea that I had created it! Deb (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; if you can read Spanish, please check this discussion. It is about the real name of the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (it wouldn't have "Gotha") and the suspect that "Braganza-Wettin" was created by supporters of Maria Pia, being it something completely unreal. It is important, since it could alter a large number of articles. Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of reportedly haunted locations, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of reportedly haunted locations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 08:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Growing up and living in a country IS EXACTLY WHAT DETERMINES YOUR NATIONALITY. You can only gain citizenship after living in a country for a set number of years.

Remember, nationality is NOT hereditary. If someone has Irish parents, then they are of Irish DESCENT or ANCESTRY. They are NOT Irish. You cannot be Irish if you have never visited there; if you grew up in a country, live in a country and - most importantly - hold citizenship for that country, then that is your nationality. Your descendency plays literally ZERO part in determining your nationality.

Therefore - Peter O'Toole is BRITISH.

Hey Jt - real glad to see you editing again. :) --mav (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Terenceoneill.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article of yours is in AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Kelly. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IrishIndependent.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Pais (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quick note to compliment you on the fine work you did four years ago on the above. Well done.

I have a question that I have tried to find the answer to in the past but so far with no luck. You might have a look at this article: Irish Free State (Constitution) Act 1922. You will note that that Act (a hard copy of which I have read in the past) required the King to make a Royal Proclamation for the Free State to come into being etc. I know from reports in The Times of 7 January that he made the Proclamation (I suppose we all know he made it beacuse the IFS would not have been born without it). My question is would you know where the text of the Proclamation might be or would there be a text....Does a Proclamation need to be in writing at all? I have searched for it....but to no avail....Interestingly, in your article, Governor-General's Address to the Oireachtas, the GG says "I have the honour to acknowledge the gracious message by which your Majesty has inaugurated the self governing Dominion of the Irish Free State." This suggests that the message from the King "With the final enactment of the Constitution the self-governing Dominion of the Irish Free State comes into being...." was the actual "Royal Proclamation" but it does not sound like what I would have thought was a Royal Proclamation....I would have that an RP would go something like, "I, hereby proclaim etc." Thanks. Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Healy.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dickmulc.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also started an article about the abov back in 2003....but the subject of your article does not correspond with the flag described in this article from The Times in 1901:

"The Commonwealth Flag. The standard of the Commonwealth, which has hitherto been preserved in Chatham Dockyard, has been deposited, by order of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, in the Royal United Service Museum, Whitehall. It is a large flag of red bunting, 20ft. long by lft. wide. A large green wreath of laurel encircles two shields placed side by side in the middle of the flag. These shields are of the same dimensions, each being 5ft. deep and 5ft. across. One of them consists of a white field with the St. George's Cross of England; the other of a blue field with the Irish harp in yellow. It is expected that the fag will be on exhibitIon before the end of the week. Owing to its large size it will not be shown in full, but will be doubled in a case in which will be displayed an illustration of the whole flag. The use of the Commonwealth flag was discontinued after the Restoration. Pepys, in his " Diary," notes the change. Writing under date Mlay 13, 1660, he says:- 'To the quarterdeck, at which the taylors and painters were at work, cutting out some pieces of yellow cloth in the fashion of a crown and C.R., and put it upon a fine sheet, and that Into the flag instead of the State's arms, which after dinner was finished and set up." The Commonwealth standard adds another to the collection of historic flags in the mnseum, the last most interesting addition being the flag of the United States frigate Chesapeake, taken by H.M.S. Shannon on June 1, 1813, and given to the museum by Mr. W. W. Astor."

I wonder do you know what flag the above is referring to? Regards. Staighre (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jtdirl: Seek primary source mentioning 1845 lightweight tiara made for Gregory XVI. Do you have it?Elbuckoaqui (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I have moved your image File:George Lee at count.jpg over to Commons for obvious reasons. Your original upload is awaiting deletion. Thanks,  Cargoking  talk  10:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed you'd come back. You might remember we used to work together back when WP was a bit more fun and wasn't so weighted down by pov wars and 'rules'.

Aaanyway. I realise this is getting you involved in an unutterable can of worms but would you mind having a look at this particular mess. Dunmanway killings, and especially the talk page. No need to read the whole thing, just the last section on article re-write. If you don't want to get involved I understand. All the best Jdorney (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, better not to get involved unless you feel really moved by it. The whole thing has gone legal. Anyway, all the best and (belated) welcome back. Jdorney (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]