User talk:DBD/Archive 4

Archives

Archive 1 (Jul 2005 – Jul 2006) Archive 2 (Aug 2006) Archive 3 (Sep – Oct 2006) Archive 4 (Nov 2006 – Jan 2007) Archive 5 (Feb – Apr 2007) Archive 6 (May 2007) Archive 7 (Jun – Jul 2007) Archive 8 (Aug – Dec 2007) Archive 9 (Jan – Mar 2008) Archive 10 (Apr – Jun 2008) Archive 11 (Jul – Sep 2008) Archive 12 (Oct – Nov 2008) Archive 13 (Dec 2008 – May 2009) Archive 14 (Jun 2009 – May 2010) Archive 15 (Jun 2010 – Jan 2011) Archive 16 (Feb – Jul 2011) Archive 17 (Aug – Nov 2011) Archive 18 (Dec 2011 – Jan 2012) Archive 19 (Feb – Mar 2012) Archive 20 (Apr – Jul 2012) Archive 21 (Aug – Oct 2012) Archive 22 (Nov 2012 – Mar 2013) Archive 23 (Apr – Jul 2013) Archive 24 (Aug – Nov 2013) Archive 25 (Dec 2013 – Apr 2014) Archive 26 (May – Oct 2014) Archive 27 (Nov 2014 – May 2015) Archive 28 (Jun – Oct 2015) Archive 29 (Nov 2015 – Apr 2016) Archive 30 (May – Nov 2016) Archive 31 (Dec 2016 – Jul 2017) Archive 32 (Aug – Oct 2017) Archive 33 (Nov 2017 – Jul 2018) Archive 34 (Aug 2018 – May 2019) Archive 35 (Jun – Nov 2019) Archive 36 (Dec 2019 – Jun 2020) Archive 37 (Sep 2020 – Aug 2021) Archive 38 (Sep 2021 – Jun 2022) Archive 39 (Jul 2022 – Mar 2023) Archive 40 (Apr – Dec 2023) Archive 41 (Jan 2024 – May 2025)

November 2006 – January 2007

Why did you feel it necessary to revert my edit (removal really) of the sentence refering to further Jacobite rebellions as "farcical"? Josh 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because this is an encyclopaedia - removing factual, informative, content is, therefore, frowned-upon. I simply acted per Wikipedia's raison d'etre - DBD^R 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have forgotten about the major threat to the government caused by the Jacobite rising in 1745. Noel S McFerran 10:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget? Goodness, no! Didn't know - therefore, my apologies. However, about Jacobitism, I care very little, so NSOMN - DBD^R 11:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November Issue

I'm not sure what would cause that. But, to my eye everything seems fine at the Charles, Prince of Wales article. --gbambino 01:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add this template to all article. There is proper template for family members. Thanks. -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell? -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the point: your 'standard' templates were ugly. Colour is disgusting and text is not readable. And I've not undone your work. I've improved templates and now they can indeed help navigation between pages. Remember WP:OWN -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

space,space,space,space,space,space,space,space,space ... -- tasc ^words_deeds 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what you did, but one of your edits was conflicting with the cadet branch option and throwing the entire template out of alignment on pages that used that option. I couldn't find what you had actually done wrong, but I decided to revert it to fix the problem. It was nothing personal, but it needed to be fixed. Sorry if that frustrated you, it wasn't meant to.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 03:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you've added the categories in manually for, what, 'ordering'? The reason there is a capacity to include a category in a template is because they go together - if someone was Duke of Albany, they belong in the category, and should have the template - thus the two are inextricably linked. What if we're told by the PtB that the category ought to be called "People who have in the past been a Duke of Albany" - someone would have to go through and manually edit the categories - whereas, with template embedding, it would only need to be altered once... – DBD 08:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for ordering. The way you did it damaged the presentation of every related article. Your point about having to edit each article is meaningless as category names can only be changed via Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and all adjustments agreed there are implemented by bot. No one will have to manuaully edit a single article. Please think twice about using advanced categorisation tools when you don't understand the basics, as you are likely to do more harm than good. Piccadilly 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See indef block: [1], that user can't weigh in outside of own talk page. — coelacan talk — 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess maybe there was consensus somewhere to add "Titles" and "Occupation" to British monarch infoboxes? I think the titles are misleading...since there is no context given, some are held for life, some are later relinquished (like Prince of Wales being passed on to the monarch's son). Maybe if dates like (1911-1951) are added after each title? And does occupation really have any meaning? What was Queen Victoria's "occupation"?... --JW1805 (Talk) 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titles is for just a chronological list of what they were known as (in full) - dates, details, longevity, succession, of titles can all be found later in the article. Occupation is not used for monarchs, but for other royals, who for instance, served, or, like Prince Michael, has a civilian job... Hope this helps! – DBD 10:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Animagus, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Someone has opposed unilaterally merging William IV's daughters into his article. You might to add your view to the talk page. Tocharianne 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google.

Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him.

The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot.

Also, watch out to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. It is especially hard for the Three-revert rule and the Neutral point of view policy to be followed because of the nature of the article, but please follow these policies along with citing sources so that the article does not get locked from editing and can't be improved further. Thanks again. Scifiintel 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is the right place to ask you! D... (I'm assuming that's your name), could you please add some pictures to the main Waterloo Road article? I know you did so for the Waterloo Road episode list, and I tried myself, but I couldn't understand a word of the copyright rubbish - so the pictures were removed.

If you could do that, I would very grateful, as I have spent a lot of time editting that article (under my username, and logged out), and I think it needs more than one image. Whenever you're avaliable. There's some new stuff on the BBC Press Office site. Thank you, in advance! (Mattpitt1991 12:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Matt - yes, of course, I shall turn my hand to it as soon as! – DBD 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i saw you're a contributor of some articles in the categories below. There's a problem to resolve here : Category:British Royal Consorts, Category:British royal consorts, Category:British queen consorts, can you take it in charge ? Thanks. --PurpleHz 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBD, you have uploaded Image:Edinburgh02.jpg, which you have tagged as {{PD-self}} indicating that you are the creator of the picture. This is can only be used if you have taken the picture yourself, which you contradict on the image description page itself, saying 'unknown photographer', and on the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh article, where you say 'The Duke, as shown in topical quiz show Have I Got News for You' indicating that it is a screen capture. Could you please clarify the source of the image so that the copyright status can be correctly determined? Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 15:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the creator of the image in that I captured it... – DBD 15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a screen capture? If that's the case, then unfortunately you are not the copyright holder of the original work (this is the photographer for the picture and the producers for the program) and cannot release it into the public domain. You would need to claim fair use for the capture with {{tv-screenshot}}, but it would not meet the fair use claim 'for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents', and the image also falls foul of fair use criteria #1 as there are free use alternatives already available or that could be obtained, meaning the image can be deleted under WP:CSD#I7. I know it makes finding pictures harder, but it's to make Wikipedia as free as possible. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 16:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then, do what you must. – DBD 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What infobox usage guidelines prohibit using the {{birth date and age}} template? You will find that template is in use in infoboxes in many articles in wikipedia. --rogerd 11:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBR's Usage doesn't prohibit them, but the box doesn't make use of them. If you think it should, please discuss. Cheers – DBD 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not part of the infobox per se, but something that is used to format a birthdate and automatically calculate the current age. You will find that it is used in infoboxes for politicians (i.e. Tony Blair, Hillary Rodham Clinton), sports figures (i.e. David Beckham, Peyton Manning)), and entertainers (i.e. Parminder Nagra, Charlton Heston) --rogerd 12:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not currently used in our royalty pages - if you think it should, feel free to put forward a case, and the community can discuss it – DBD 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to consider this article, which is up for deletion: Diarmuid O'Neill. David Lauder 12:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]