User talk:Stijn Calle/2007

Ernestine duchies

You added Category:Upper Saxon Circle to the Ernestine duchies article. I don't think that is appropriate, as only five of the duchies (Saxe-Weimar, Saxe-Eisenach, Saxe-Coburg, Saxe-Gotha and Saxe-Altenburg) were members of the Upper Saxon Circle. I think it is more appropriate to add those five duchies to the category, but not the whole group of duchies. -- Donald Albury 01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Royalist versus Monarchist

I observe that you changed both Royalist and Monarchism to record your opinion that the two concepts are different. I do not think these are minor edits. --RichardVeryard 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

a Royalist stems from the latin word Rex (king), a person who rules a kingdom. It points to the individual who was king. A Monarch isn't necessary a king. He can be a prince, duke, etc. It point to the institution, a monarchy, a system of government. In Contintental Europe the distinction is made between people who adhere to a Royal (King), e.g. royalty and everythings it surrounds (glamour etc.), whilst adherence to a system (Monarchy) of governement is semantically linked to monarchy. The words are not synonymous. Stijn Calle 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of your opinion. I'm commenting on the fact that you are making significant changes to the content of these articles, and I believe it is inappropriate to mark these changes as minor. You may also wish to post your reasoning for these changes in the Talk pages for the two articles. --RichardVeryard 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I observe that the vast majority of your edits are marked as minor. Please read the guidance on minor edits. --RichardVeryard 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:House of Saxe

I've nominated this category that you created for deletion, as the 'House of Saxe' as such doesn't exist: all the houses named like 'Saxe-Altenburg', etc. are sub-houses of the House of Wettin and the 'Saxe' is just an abbreviation of 'Saxony', as they all ruled subdivisions of Saxony (and technically all bore the title 'Duke of Saxony'). Therefore, they should just be listed under Category:House of Wettin, and I've moved them there. Thanks! —smigs 23:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

French nobility categories

Hey - just a note on categories for Dukes and Counts of France: if an article already links to a subcategory of Counts or Dukes of France, there is no need to add it to the Counts/Dukes of France main category. For example: Counts of Verdun already links to the Category:Counts of Verdun, which is a subcat of Counts of France. Thanks- NYArtsnWords 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey - I noticed that you are still over categorizing (as, for example, on Counts of Rouergue). Once again, if a list of nobility is already in a category which is itself a subcategory of Dukes of France or Counts of France etc., please do not also include it in those main cats. Thanks -- NYArtsnWords 19:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, but then all these lists should go into one category of their own en:category:Lists of French nobility Stijn Calle 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

sure, all the lists should be placed in the Lists of French nobility category and also in the Dukes/Counts of... category they refer to. Although, to tell the truth, I don't quite see the point anymore of the Lists of French nobility category... it may have served a purpose once, but now it just seems like wiki book-keeping to me. --NYArtsnWords 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

When moving articles, please ensure that you then fix any double redirects caused by the move. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just came here to say what Kirill just said. Also, moving a page from "List of counts (or dukes etc.) ..." to simply "Counts (dukes etc.) of ..." is defensible and even makes sense, but moving "County of (or principality of, etc.) ..." to "Counts (or princes etc.) of ..." is not usually. Srnec 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

the logic in moving Counts to County and vice versa is that at this moment, information about the actual state, historic region, and historic rulers are all mixed up. I'm trying to sort them out, so that a more clear description of each will result. Stijn Calle 14:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. But where a stub of a region/state exists with a list of rulers, it would be better to simply copy and paste the list to a new page then to move the article (with the information on the region/state) to a page named "Rulers of...", no? Please, continue to sort, but you should also fix any double redirects you create (redirects to redirects). Srnec 18:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Coats of arms

Be sure that the coats of arms you provide were actually those used by the persons whose articles you add them to! I doubt that any duke of Gascony was using a coat of arms in the tenth century. Srnec 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Their is a difference between a personal coat of arms (which belongs only to one person), and a territorial coat of arms. E.g. the count of a county has the right te use the coat of arms of his county (on its own). It he happens to be also duke of another duchy, he has also got the right to use the coat of arms of that particular duchy (on its own). His personal coat of arms could be something totally different, e.g. a combination of both coat of arms in a unique combination, that only applies for that person. If I use coat of arms with counts, etc, I use them almost uniquely as a territorial coat of arms, not a personal coat of arms. Only in few cases, this would be factually wrong, in most cases, it is applicable. Stijn Calle 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, this type of distinction would only have arisen later, and not as early as the tenth century, where "coat of arms" is anachronistic in any sense. Personal coats of arms are, as far as I can see, the only arms necessary for biographies. Leave the territorial arms for the articles on the territories, unless a specific individual reshaped his territorial arms. Srnec 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Freskin of Flanders

Noticed you have moved Freskin to Freskin of Flanders. If you read the article, you will see that it is not categoric that Freskin was Flemish. The point is though, that if even he did originate in Flanders he was never known as Freskin of Flanders and because of his importance in being the common ancestor of very important Scottish families so applying this title is incorrect. He remained unrecorded during his own lifetime — only referred to during the lifetime of his children and grandchildren. So I would ask you to reconsider this change. Thanks. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Despite my earlier comments, you are continuing to mark the vast majority of your edits as minor. But many of your edits are clearly substantial rather than minor - I think the discussion on this page provides some evidence of this. Can I please ask you again to read and follow the guidance on minor edits. --RichardVeryard 00:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I will read the article and apply the principles. Stijn Calle 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pretenders to the throne of Rwanda

Will this category ever have more than two or three entries? If not, it isn't needed, because categories are supposed to group a reasonable amount of related things, not just a few. Picaroon 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This category will today not count more then 3 or 4 persons, but this number can only augment in the future. WP is not only constructed for today, but must also preview futur developments. Furthermore, the category Pretenders is made up of to many articles, that have nothing in common and this is a bigger source of confusion in itself. The subcategory is a remedy for this problem. Stijn Calle 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

House of Poitiers/Aquitaine coat of arms

Greetings! I was curious to know if it was you who posted the gold lion/lepord on red field for the House of Aquitaine. I am needing to find the source for that image, as in when was it first recorded as identified with that house. Any help you can give will be appriciated.Drachenfyre 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See [1] Stijn Calle 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits & summaries

1. Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks!
2. when editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
   
   The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
   Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Stijn Calle 06:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Hohenzollern-herb-rodowy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hohenzollern-herb-rodowy.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretender categories

Please stop creating categories that are populated only by one or two people. These people are generally linked from each other's articles and such categories are completely pointless. Charles 22:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Article moves

I've noticed a number of article moves that you have made today. Please remember to update redirects so that double redirects are avoided.

Additionally, I'm not sure of some of the moves. Ansbach and Bayreuth/Kulmbach are usually known as the "Principalities of", not "Margraviates of" (Manfred Scheuch's Historischer Atlas Deutschland, Westermanns Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, William R. Shepherd's Historical Atlas). Your desired titles of Margraviate of Brandenburg-Bayreuth and Margriavate of Brandenburg-Ansbach [sic] are also quite rare; Google Books indicates that "Principality of Ansbach" is used more frequently.

Could you clarify your rationale for moving Moravia to Margraviate of Moravia? The article is about a historical region (Moravia) through the present-day, not just a state until 1918 (Margraviate of Moravia). Olessi 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What all these fiefs have in common, is that they are states of the Holy Roman Empire (with allodial rights). Historically, and factually, they have numerous labels (county, margraviate, duchy, ...) but are essentialy allodial fiefs. As such, the reigning ruler of the fief is called by his title (count, margrave, duke, ...) but his descendants and close family are called princes. This is the English translation of Fürst. But they are not princes in the strict sence of the word who have a territorial claim, but have received this title as a personal right to bear. As such, all of these states can be called principality, but this is factually too incorrect. To call them with their noble title is much more precise. E.g. Moravia was a margraviate of the kingdom of Bohemia. There should exist an article about the historical region, but there should also exist articles about the historical state(s) that existed in that region. Both are not necessarily the same. Idealy, a distinction should be made in the articles between the different functions of these territories (geographical region, political entity, sovereign entity, administrative entity, ...). This will take a lot of time, but is essential in order to reach a level of accuracy that is normal for an encyclopedia. Stijn Calle 18:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Then work on the articles instead of creating an absolute mess by naming grand duchies as duchies, duchies as principalities and principalities as margraviates. Charles 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have been doing the last few days. Stijn Calle 19:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Stijn Calle is right. In it´s original sense, the German title of prince is a title awarded by the Emperor to dukes, margraves, landgraves and counts palatine, expressing a certain level of independence in relation to the Empire. The rank of the person still was expressed by his original title. So in relation to his neighbour, the Duke of Palatinate Zweibrücken, the count of Nassau Saarbrücken occupied the lower rank of nobility, although both of them were princes. There was only one difference. The count of Saarbrücken used the title of prince, because for him, this was a possibility of separation from other counts, not being allowed to use this title. The duke of Palatinate Zweibrücken used the dukal title, because he wanted to show his higher position in comparison to a simple count or margrave, who was allowed to use the title of prince too. Therefore only princes with the position of count were called prince. The higher nobles used their own title, indicating their princedom only with the address "Durchlaucht". With the exception of the lowest rank, the title prince only means collective term. To be precise, the real title has to be used. The magraviates of Ansbach and Kulmbach were principalities but the accurate title is magraviate. Not to do so is like calling the King of england or the emperor of Nippon monarch of England and Monarch of Nippon. It is not wrong, but why use an imprecise title, if there is a correct title. Thw1309 06:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Princes Bibescu?

Hi. I just noticed you created the category Princes Bibescu. The thing is that there is already a Category:Bibescu family, and virtually all its members were princes... Or, actually, very few of them were: the ones that were princes for real were actually reigning princes, as in "rulers" (they go under Category:Rulers of Wallachia). The others were not actually princes, since, after 1860 or something, Romanian law did not give recognition to any nobility but the royal house of Hohenzollern. I view the cat as an error leading to complications, and I think it should be merged into the family cat. Granted, we still lack articles to cover these nuances, but I assure you that cat cannot lead anywhere. Dahn 11:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for "Category:Princes Stirbei", which is also wrong because it does not use diacritical marks. Dahn 11:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pretenders to the Egyptian throne

[2]: I proposed the category for delete as it is non-defining and actually oversimplifying the history of Egypt. The only item added there was also quite incorrect. Pavel Vozenilek 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Katholische Academische Verbindung Lovania Leuven

Please could you add some informations on the activities of the fraternity. Thw1309 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ja, lieber Cbr., das kann ich. Stijn Calle 09:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cartellverband der katholischen deutschen Studentenverbindungen

Dear Cartellbruder, are you sure about Only in matters of protocol are based. Your En-4 is better than mine, but this looks funny. Thw1309 15:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lieber Cbr, naturlich ist das falsch. Ich werde es korrigieren. Stijn Calle 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cvlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cvlogo.jpg. 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.

Please go to the image 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 '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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Cvlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cvlogo.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, then 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, then 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-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 17:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

House of la Tour d'Auvergne

Could you explain why you flooded the article with red links? Are you not aware that Wikipedia is not a genealogical reference? I would appreciate your revert to the previous version of the page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Counts of Hainaut

I would be grateful if you could answer my query at Talk:Counts of Hainaut. Gdr 21:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy paste moves

DO NOT perform copy/paste moves as you did with Bourbon-Busset, especially after the article was already moved back. Charles 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bosonids

Hallo, Stijn. Dat was een goed idee van je om een category:Bosonids te maken. Daar had ik zelf ook al nagedacht, maar ik wist niet hoe. Dan is het fijn dat er iemand met je mee denkt. Thanx! johanthon 17:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Chateaudun

What is the "House of Chateaudun"? I have never heard of that, especially in relation to the Angevin kings of Jerusalem (who are rarely ever referred to even as "Angevin"). Adam Bishop 18:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See the French WP article. I am currently bringing a bit of order in the different Angevin dynasties, so the House of Chateaudun will be a part of this review. It should be finished in a couple of days. Stijn Calle 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I had the same question. Is the term used outside of Wikipedia, whether in a French or English publication? I would be greatly relieved to see that it is, as I have never seen it before. I believe I have seen "Ingelgerians" or "Ingelgerids" for the first Angevin dynasty somewhere once. Srnec 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that there are tons of references to "Maison de Chateaudun" in French, but zero for "House of Chateaudun" or "Chateaudun dynasty" in English. Maybe this is an idiosyncracy of French genealogy? If so, is it appropriate to reorganize the English articles that way? Adam Bishop 02:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I am not sure what Wikipedia policy is for scholarly, easily-translatable, foreign-language phrases that have no English precedent to cite... Oh well, I guess we'll have to make it up. But I think that organising all the articles along the lines of a schema unknown in English may be less than advisable. Is there no English terminology for the early Angevins? Srnec 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Stijn Calle has a habit of making these decisions and problems arise, almost on a daily basis, with some of the edits. They need to be discussed. A lot of these families are not Houses as described in English and would best be left at just the name, an article about the title, or with family appended to the end. Charles 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not quarrel about words. A house, a dynasty, a family, all indicate a connection of blood between the members. Feel free to suggest different names for particular houses, but I am only trying to bring some order in these enormous categories of 'general houses' e.g. Anjou, where you have to be a specialist in desciphering any order. And in hundreds of uncategorizes articles about family members. If therefor a purpusefull word exist in the French language, I try to use it, a tradition that has been repeated over a thousand years. Stijn Calle 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not apply the term "House" to families that do not use it or warrant it. It doesn't matter if you think about it, Chateaudun could easily stay under that name with no term like House, dynasty, etc. Charles 08:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Please explain why I shoul not apply the term "House" to families that do not use it or warrant it.Stijn Calle 08:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Please explain families that do not warrant it. Who is the judge of that, and what are the criteria?Stijn Calle 08:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to number 1, you should not do so because Wikipedia is not a repository of genealogical original research, and it's not our purpose to make up new genealogical categories to classify people, even in the interests of completeness. Choess 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not standard in English to refer to noble families as "houses", especially with no sources to say so. Charles 13:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

ehm.... The French word "maison" translates in English as "house". Within branches of noble families it is worldwide custom to associate a particulair branch with their main property, or highest title. Naturally both "maison" and "house" do relate to the property-custom. Since the vast majority of visitors of wikipedia-English are non-native speakers I think it is sufficient that the French qualify this branch as "maison de Chateaudun" and "house of Chateaudun" is the best translation. If you have ever seen the Chateau, you will understand the French. The work Stijn does is very helpfull for navigation and it orders the information more understandable. johanthon 13:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a literal translation but it does not take well in English. How about a House of Spencer-Churchill for the Dukes of Marlborough. Believe me, I am well acquainted with Stijn Calle's work and I have a differing opinion. Charles 13:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought WP:EN was an English language encyclopedia. That is, it is written in the English language. It did not think it was an English culture encyclopedia (that sort of goes a bit against the very idea of an encyclopedia). You can use the word 'house', 'family' or 'dynasty', I do not care, as long as there is categorisation to make the whole nobility descendency scene a bit more comprehensible. Stijn Calle 14:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Family is much more appropriate in cases of more obscure families or those without usage for "Chateaudun". Also, for instance, articles like the so-called "House of Alba" can be listed under the title (eg Dukes of Alba) if usage doesn't permit "House". As for making note of the nobility, it is not needed in the names. People reading about it will either a) know that they are noble and look it up or b) find it through other links and categories in a context that conveys that. Nobility throughout Europe is much to vast to use one singular categorization theme while still observing usage and avoiding artificially constructed forms. Charles 14:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but do not replace family with 'duke', because the title of duke changes in the passing of time from one family to another. The categorisation duke should only contain the title bearers, not the families of them. Stijn Calle 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I was using it for an example for use when it would be required or desirable. Charles 22:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I still it agree that it sounds odd to use these terms in English. Yes of course "maison" means "house" but what you are claiming seems to go beyond normal English usage. To me, describing something as a "house" means they themselves identified with that name. But what is "House of Chateaudun"? People descended from a family that owned that castle? How does that make them a "house"? Or "House of Ingelger"? Obviously they are all descended from Ingelger, but did any of them consciously identify themselves that way? We have pages about the Valois, the Capetians, the Bourbons, the Windsors, even lesser families like the House of Courtenay, but a lot of these other ones sound like Stijn is just making them up. Adam Bishop 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I am not making them up, but translating.

2. Lets settle this and start using the word '... dynasty' instead of 'House of ...' in cases were the English cultural sense does not accept the use of the word 'house'. Stijn Calle 07:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "dynasty" would help; it might make it worse, actually. Adam Bishop 08:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "dynasty" is worse, and for the exact same reason. In the English language, "House of X" is used in haute couture, literature, and history. In history, with rare exceptions, the phrase is used to describe families of which multiple members have exercised hereditary sovereignty. That is why it is customary to refer to the "House of York", "House of Tudor", or "House of Stuart", but not the "House of Seymour", "House of Cromwell", "House of Spencer-Churchill" or "House of Rockefeller", despite the fact that these are venerable families that have enjoyed power, wealth or prominence. This is even more true of the word "dynasty". This isn't anglocentric because prominent families of non-English-speaking nations are treated similarly: House of Romanov, House of Bonaparte, House of Medici, and House of Saud. The encyclopedic way to handle this is, preferably, to use the surname as the article title. An alternative compromise would be to suffix "family" to the surname -- but since that is an innovation, consensus should be obtained. "House of" just sounds inappropriately grandiose in English. Lethiere 00:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

let's settle this, and change everything to '... family' and form concensus. ~~

de Salis

Hi, dear Stijn, you created a category 'Counts of Salis'. Their name is De Salis. There is no place Salis, so 'of' is doubly redundant. Was wondering, therefore, if you could please change the category name to 'Counts de Salis'? Rodolph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolph (talk • contribs) 14:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Counts of Portugal (Castile)

Hello. I see you have created the Category:Counts of Portugal (Castile). There is a problem... it should be Category:Counts of Portugal (Leon). The counties of Portugal were nver counties of Castile but of the Kingdom of Leon. This should be corrected. Thank you. 62.169.101.221 12:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So-called House of Burgundy-Portugal

As you have been asked before, please do not move articles and the like to such "inventive" names that have no basis in usage or literature. Charles 19:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Marian Apparitions category

Please stop creating all these unecessary one-article categories, which are likely to be deleted. Johnbod 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed teh same thing as "Johnbod" commented on. Please see my detailed comments on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Divine_visionaries which is also a "specially invented category" that seems to serve a specific purpose for expressing a subtle personal point of view. Please revert those to a neutral point of view, or I will have to edit them back if you like. Thank you. History2007 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated many of these for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_5#Multiple_Apparitions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ITS.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ITS.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 '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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 19:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country

Hi Stijn Calle. You've recently restored some material I deleted from this page without responding to the concerns I raised about it on the talk page. Could you please discuss, rather than simply restoring. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lords of France cfd

Hi, I would appreciate your comments here. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanking category pages - a suggestion

Hello - if you create a category, and then decide that you don't want it, can I suggest that you add{{db-author}} to the page, instead of just blanking it? I've been going through Special:Uncategorizedcategories and came across various occasions where you had created the category and then blanked the page (such as Category:Marquisses Dessolles‎, Category:Marquisses of Namur‎, Category:Seigneurs of Lorges‎, Category:Viscounts of Beziers‎ and Category:Viscount of Marsan‎). I've nominated them for speedy deletion, but it'll save other people work in the future if you remember this. Thanks, and happy editing. Bencherlite^Talk 11:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparitions categories at CfD

I have nominated for deletion several categories which you created: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28#Apparitions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You may be interested in this revived category, Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies. JASpencer (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)