User talk:Marnanel

Hey Marnanel -- you seem to be another editor who knows quite a bit about interactive fiction. I'm making a concerted effort to flesh out the IF articles around here -- the first one I've worked on is Inform. Do you feel like helping out? We could divide up tasks. Adam Conover 19:57, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Sure, I'd love to. What needs doing? Marnanel 20:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Well, IIRC there's not much in Glulx. Unfortunately, I'm not as familiar with it as I am with Inform. We could also use more information on the Z-machine, I think. As for Inform I've been trying to give it a more full treatment as a programming language, and I think that TADS could use the same sort of work. Finally, I'm hoping to document more of the important works and events in modern IF history -- the "Notable Games Written in Inform" section of Inform makes a brief stab at that, and a few of those games and authors have their own articles. In general, though, I think it would be terrific if we could create a lot of encyclopediac material about the works that deserve it, and integrate it into a sort of timeline. What are you thoughts? Adam Conover 21:51, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • I know a bit about Glulx, so I could put that together; I don't know that much about TADS, though. Modern IF history (games, people) certainly need some description, yes-- if a game wins the IFComp it's probably worth writing about, and there are many others. (I like the writeup at Photopia, and the way it concentrates on the influences the game had and made within the genre.) Once we get that underway a little, we might invite ideas from rec.arts.int-fiction about what articles are needed. I'm not sure what else can be said in a brief nontechnical overview of the Z-machine. I looked at Java virtual machine for comparison, but that entry has even less about the guts of that virtual machine. Marnanel 01:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know... Java virtual machine looks pretty technical to me! And no, I don't know that much about TADS either. Perhaps we could co opt someone? As for the other stuff, I don't know if you hang out on ifMUD, but I was trying to pick some brains there. The definition I decided on for the "Notable Games" listing in Inform were "Games that were milestones in the history of interactive fiction" -- that is, games that established trends or set major watermarks -- and I tried to describe how they did so in the list. What do you think of that definition? Also, maybe we should set up a page to dicuss this effort separately? From what I gather, a WikiProject page isn't exactly what we'd be looking for, but perhaps something in between? We could make up a list of tasks, etc. Interested? Adam Conover 01:46, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. When you add arms to pages with a box, could you make them actually int he box? Like what i've done to Chiltern (district) - having them stacked side by side isn't really very appealing. One day we will have a better countrybox like format. Morwen 22:50, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Oo, sure, will do. Marnanel 22:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Howdy. I think your new image for Flag of Scotland is a great improvement its chubby predecessor. I wonder if you could do me a favour - could you possibly produce an identical version, only with the azure as something near to Pantone-300 (which photoshop says is around rgb(0,103,198) == #0067c6). I think the article should show both - one your more traditional sky-blueish one, and the second the cryptostandard pantone 300 one. Given the entertaining colour-discussion in the article itself, does that seem like a good idea? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:26, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure, how's this?

Marnanel 19:37, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, thankyou. I've updated the article accordingly, making it look accurately muddleheaded :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now replaced with an SVG version: Image:Flag of Scotland.svg. Thanks/wangi 20:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

What's your problem, doc? 666 21:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Read the talk page. AFAICS, it's not listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, so it shouldn't have the VFD message. Marnanel 22:12, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

thnx man Privacy is good 01:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I read in the Gueiness Book that he contested every election he ever ran in. Therefore, if he contested over 40, he must have ran in over 40. user:J.J.

Ahh, okay, fair enough. I guess the word has a different meaning in the UK. Here, to "contest" means to challenge.

Hi, and thanks for fixing the table in BBC Micro#Specifications. Do you by any chance know how one would horizontally adjust such a table within a bullet list? The best placement would undoubtedly be in line with the lists indentation at the level the table is placed in. So far a method of attaining this has eluded me... Any hints would be appreciated. --Wernher 09:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that sort of nonsense is absolutely unacceptable. It's purely an opinion based on a personal agenda, and there's a place and way to note that -- but that guy wasn't interested in following policy. But note that he's put it in twice! He probably won't stop. We may have to get him banned. jaknouse 19:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

His comment was so insipid, self-important, and infuriating it simply had to be responded to. I did have to spend some time making the response civil, though <g>. In light of your remarks, I'm happy you saw it. I hope the original author sees it as well, and takes a moment to reconsider his remark...but let's not hold our breath! All the best, - Nunh-huh 16:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

from the pump

In case it's useful to anyone, tonight I made this:

It's the vaguely-standard link button size of 80x15. Feel free to use it to link to Wikipedia. Marnanel 01:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've added a link to it under Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. —Steven G. Johnson 02:11, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that the nohat logo is not GFDL. See m:Logo -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:27, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Given what I see there, Finlay, I would argue that Marnanel's work is derivative, and that nohat's only request for derivative works is that they be released under the GFDL, which it's my understanding that Marnanel's work is. Is there a section I'm misreading? Jwrosenzweig 19:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that nohat hasn't yet agreed to the terms on that page, so they're pending terms, not current ones. On the assumption that he does approve them, those terms request that derivative works be licenced under the GFDL (I think that implies, but doesn't prove) that the original isn't GFDL - the restriction would already be there were the original GFDL. Don't misunderstand me - I'm not critisising Nohat or Marnanel or their work at all (they're lovely - the work, that is). Indeed, I think that the logo and marnanel's button shouldn't be GFDL. Just like the wikipedia trademark, ideally they'd belong to Wikimedia (or have Wikimedia in particular be granted a rather broad licence to them). If the logo were GFDL, then any of our mirrors could blithely use them, change them as they saw fit, and change the link target to point not to wikipedia but to the mirror. By way of a (somewhat extreme) example, Sun Microsystems has a "jump to java" webbutton, the only redistributable use of their "Duke" character (roughly a logo for their Java technology). The terms they impose on users of the webbutton is that the button be accompanied by html (essentially, the link text and destination) supplied by Sun. So you couldn't use their button but point it somewhere else. That seems like a reasonable thing we'd like to think about for users of buttons like Marnanel's (and, not to belabour the point, but that's something we can only achieve if the image isn't GFDL) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello. I saw your upload of the NJ Transit logo. Image:NJ_Transit_logo.png In that description, you say, "used for identification, assumed fair use". Is there a wikipedia policy describing this practice? I'm curious because I'd like to upload some similar logos and want to make sure that it is indeed a fair use. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 09:22, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair_use covers, I'm led to believe. Marnanel 03:18, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks, that clears things up. FYI, I just uploaded a somewhat cleaner versions of the logo that includes their "The Way to Go" tagline. Thanks for getting back to me. I wouldn't have realized logos were fair use if I hadn't seen your contribution. --ChrisRuvolo 06:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll change it back. Yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you're interested in heraldry and Sidney... do you know what the thing on the right of the sidney shield is meant to be? I've only found little bitmaps on the web which are too small to decipher. Any better image or the blazon would be helpful. Cheers, Lupin 09:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's argent a bend engrailed sable, impaling or a pheon azure. A pheon is a "broad arrow", the same device that was once printed on prisoners' clothes: perhaps some member of the Sidney family was once in charge of prisons. Marnanel 13:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's a lot more on the pheon and government property in the pheon article. More relevantly here, the pheon is a charge on the arms of the Sidney family. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do agree with you. Sorry it took so long to reply, I've just come back from the Shetlands. If you have time, check out this entertaining web site - www.unstbusshelter.shetland.co.uk Deb 10:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not at the moment. However, I may make one. Morwen - Talk 07:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi there,

I read the text: Lundy is an island in the Bristol Channel of Great Britain and took the word of as possessive. You may be interpreting it more like off. It could probably be interpreted either way in the current from. The wording is a bit weird and probably needs revision.

I read the text: Map of Lundy with inset maps of Great Britain & Bristol Channel and saw that the greater area picture was actually of the United Kingdom. I think that is a reasonable interpretation.

However, I am not too worried either way. Feel free to make further change or leave it.

Thanks.
Bobblewik 15:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NATO not part of EU

Inference in WEU article and the lack of information on a military side of EU as described on their site and with sidebar conversations I have had with others who do not understand the interdependence of the various organizations. --Tomtom 14:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When flown by civilians the flag should have a white border, but this is rarely seen now.

I've never heard of this; what evidence do we have for the assertion? Marnanel 20:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The flag is sometimes refered to as the Pilots' Jack and traces it creation back to 1823 when it was created as a signal flag, and never intended as a civil jack. A book explaining the Act was issued to British consuls in 1855. It states that the white bordered Union Jack is the flag to be hoisted for a pilot, although it was being used by that time as a jack and the use of the Red Ensign for merchant shipping was not established until 1864. There was some ambiguity as to the legality of using as a jack although the practise was not acted upon by the authorities, partly because of fears that it would rise to demands that the merchany fleet be allowed to use the Uion Jack, a practice that the Admirialty did not want for no more than abitrary reasons and a possible superiority complex

In 1970 the white-bordered Union Jack ceased to be the signal for a pilot, but references to it as national colours were not removed from the current Merchant Shipping Act. It thus became a flag that could legally be flown on a civil ship, as a jack if desired. This status was confirmed by the Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Act 1993. From which prohibits the use of any distinctive national colours or those used or resembling flags or pendants on Her Majesty's Ships, except:

1. the red ensign
2. the Union flag with white border
3. any colours authorised or confirmed elsewhere in the same Act.

Hence it might well be considered a civil jack, but that only applies at sea. Dainamo 15:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to let you know thw reply is on page. --garryq 17:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At [[Template:United States infobox]], you reverted one of the images. Why did you do this? The other one looked much better. Neutrality 03:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I got your messasge on my talk page. Sounds good, thanks for helping me out. Neutrality 21:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice article pal!

Big Jim Fae Scotland

Thanks :) It was interesting researching it. Marnanel 16:54, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:Mentha spicata.jpg. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --Diberri | Talk 23:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for explaining. I didn't know:-( David Cannon 20:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am looking at tagging all the Arms-of images. Reading your notes I can see they are {{permission}} but are they {{GFDL}}? In other words is the owner happy for others to use them provided acknowledgement is made? Rgds Rich Farmbrough 17:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am sending this message to a group of seasoned users whose opinions I respect. My aim is not to draw you into a dispute, but to canvass opinion on a contentious area of policy. If you have a few minutes to spare, please see the debate currently under way at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, with particular reference to user page protection. For some reason, I seem to have fallen foul of a group of sysops who have made it their business to stamp out the practice of protecting one’s own user page. A sensible (in my opinion) proposal has been made to amend the policy, and I would be grateful if you would add your view, assuming you have one. Cheers. Deb 13:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Hello, there. Due to ambiguity, there seems to be a need for said category to be renamed---the new name should most probably be "Category:One-of-a-kind computers". See the "Early computers" category talk page for the discussion about this; pitch in if you like. If you agree with the suggestion, please indicate so on the talk page; it would let us do the practical renaming work much quicker. BTW, thanks for creating the category in the first place! :-) --Wernher 07:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ages ago, you posted a question on the Pius XII talk page. Since no one else has replied, I might provide you with this link: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/fatima/immaculh.html Str1977 18:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I'm hoping you';ll be able to help me, since you seem to know more about this subject than I do. I was looking for the Somerset Coat of Arms to add to a new stub template for places in Somerset, and found an image of them on-line. I copied the arms by hand (excluding the motto scroll), scanned my drawing and messed around with it in photoshop, producing Image:Somersetarms.png. Question is - what is its copyright status? Do I claim it as "Fair use", or is there a better category of image use to classify it under? (BTW - I see from your user page that we have something vaguely in common - You're from Hitchin and living in the US - I'm from Barnet and living in New Zealand). Grutness...wha? 09:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - another message further up your talk page gives me more info - I've listed it at Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Flag of Scotland Pantone300.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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.

Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better. Thanks for all your hard work on heraldic topics.--Eva ^db 09:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm curious-- why was he given an Irish peerage?"

He was an Irish MP albeit, as with most protestants was, English by decent. His wife's family had been viscounts then earls of Ely so - when those titles became extinct - being a clever soul he changed his name to that of her family and using his wealth parlimentary position/support tried to get the titles recreated in his favour. Irish titles were always much easier to get due to their generally lower status and precedence.Alci12 23:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dp-sarasvati.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 08:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dp-sarasvati.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at this. As I understand it, representations of coats of arms are copyrightable; they are the creation of the artist who made them. However, the descriptions of the coats of arms do not create derivative encumbrances on images made based on their descriptions. Thus, an artist who renders a graphic of the coats of arms description is not infringing on the rights of the entity which holds rights to the coats of arms. Thus, the site you gathered the excellent coats of arms images from can release rights to the images they themselves have created. The problem here is that we do not have a definitive release as to their copyright status, only that we can use them with credit given. Please see the above link for how I think we should proceed. Without release of rights, we can't even use these images under a fair use claim because the renderings of the coats of arms descriptions are not unique; anyone can take the descriptions and create their own version of the arms. All the best, --Durin 05:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marnael. I hope you can reconsider your vote in the straw poll at Talk:Roman Catholic Church.

The comparison you made with "Christian Church" is very interesting, but it is not a perfect comparison, as another user has noted in a comment following your vote in the page. I also believe the last part of your text there reflects a common misunderstanding about how the NPOV policy is to be applied to naming conventions. In Here there is an explanation about that. But I think it's even better to check the explanation for that in Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms.

Thanks for considering my arguments. Best wishes. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 06:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hedd Wyn.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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: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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angr 14:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made a request at s:cy:Wicitestun:Y Sgriptoriwm to have adminship rights granted at the Welsh Wikisource. I'm the only active user there at the moment, which means no one is available to do anything that requires adminship rights. If you'd like to support or oppose my request, please do so there. Thanks! Angr 10:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with deleting my contributions to pages? Quit it or I'll report your ass 218.185.94.226 00:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bite me. The section you're adding is unencyclopedic and you need to discuss it on the talk page first. Marnanel 00:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Christianism" referred to Mapuche's religion it was a mistake. In Spanish Cristianismo means "Christianity" but Cristiandad means "All the Christian people". Bye. --Lin linao 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marnanel. Thanks for noticing the vandalism to my talk page. Just a note that any user which takes the name "John <anything> Robinson" (an attack on User:Hephaestos's real name) is automatically assumed to be "Johnny the Vandal" and is immediately indefinitely blocked on sight. His behaviour is quite characteristic! -- Arwel (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Drapers_COA.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 09:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch! garik 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Any particular reason for pointing feisty to ubuntu? Seems a bit weird to me. CanOfWorms 16:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello. As a regular reader of Planet GNOME and thus your blog, it's nice to touch base with you personally.

I'm currently wanting to create a GNOME software template much like what has been done for Template:KDE. I left a comment on the GNOME article's talk page but it hasn't been replied to. As original creator of the template and active contributor to GNOME-related articles, I'd like to ask your opinion on the matter. Should I bother creating a spin-off just for software, or perhaps we can merge the two ideas in a satisfactory way? Thanks. — Sam 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little amused that Québec has been moved to England [1] :) Marnanel 17:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can't really believe I did it - it was probably my stupidest mistake in Wikipedia Saga City 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you uploaded this: Image:Arms-herts.jpg. Do you think you could upload another one that is a free-use image instead of fair-use. I am trying to set up a WikiProject about Hertfordshire. Simply south 11:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a free-use image (or I'd have used it). I think you could maybe ask my friends User:TSP or [[User::Armtuk]] who are both good at making SVGs out of bitmap images; if the whole achievement of arms are too complicated, maybe they could just do the shield. (Send hugs from me.) Good luck with your WikiProject; I'd like to join it myself (I was born in Hitchin). Marnanel 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armtuk doesn't seem to exist. I will try the other user and yes i will add you if you like. Simply south 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or it might be better if you add yourself. Go to WP:HERTS. Simply south 09:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be interested in continuing this debate: [2] Thanks (Ajkgordon 07:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. Hello by the way =) Rossenglish 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original info was that the building was to be torn down as the cathedral was completed. It looks like someone tried to update it to read that the building was to be kept and renovated last year, but they mangled it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there, Marmanel:

How are you doing? Thanks a lot for your commendation of my username: it was one of those names made on the spur of the moment, but I'm glad that you like it.

Best wishes,

--It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could go for the hat-trick and move it to User:Stingmans/Deathly Hallows Leaks! pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted the edit you made to this article. The assertion is made in the article on Wilton, Wiltshire though worded somewhat more precisely as should be expected in an article on the subject. Mallanox 00:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some confusion has occured as the sign on entry to Wilton states "Ancient capital of Wessex". I will see if I can get some clarification on this point from the local library. Mallanox 01:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say winning the third highest award for gallantry does confer notability and there are hundreds of people in the category to show that. I'd go ahead and write your article. The fact that you're related to the person doesn't preclude you writing an article so long as it's sourced. It's not like you have a direct financial interest in it. Nick mallory 04:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the assumption that you're the Marnanel I think you are, hi! SamBC(talk) 18:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be helpful if you could comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of coats of arms of English counties (2nd nomination). JulesH 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that quite a number of the images were not uploaded by Marnanel, for example Image:GLCArms.jpg, Image:City of London Arms.png, Image:Derbyshirearms.PNG, Image:Leicsarms.PNG, and Image:Northants arms.png to name just a few. --Durin 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could figure out the Mc part, it was more the Cheyne part I was wondering about. Is it pronounced just like "chain"? Or does it rhyme with "green"? Is the "ch" pronounced like in "chair", or "character", or "loch"? —Angr/talk 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GROGGS, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that GROGGS satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GROGGS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of GROGGS during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marnanel! I have an interest in coat of arms too and like yours displayed! Articals into Welsh, well, there are so many articals to publish in Welsh. I am a Welsh learner but not of any quality to write an artical. Personally and purely selfishly, my favorite artical I rewrote I would like to see in Welsh... Melisende of Jerusalem. It was the first artical I wrote here and I feel very proud of it, and seeing it in Welsh would be very helpful for me to learn the language. Other then that, I am uncertin at the importance of other articals of Welsh interest. I am currently rewritting the Plaid Cymru page and already created a Histroy of Plaid Cymru. I hope to hear from ya soon! Dydd da! Drachenfyre 20:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Plaid Cymru! This artical should be so translated if you can! lol. I dont know why I didnt think on it! As Ive been working on it for some time. Also... possibly Welsh Peers. Both articals I have largely authored —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drachenfyre (talk • contribs) 10:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mentha_spicata.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is 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. Calliopejen1 04:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hp_sauce.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}} 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 22:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 22:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SEPTA.png. 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. BetacommandBot 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current popular and covered version is indeed Pete St. John's, but they're based on folk music and lyrics that go back to the 1800's (1880 or so specifically). The lyrics are different but fine to use on the page.

The Six Nations songs

There was a version which appeared in 1880 but the modern version was written by Pete StJohn in 1979 and recorded first by Paddy O'Reilly.

MIT Harp list discussion correcting a user who believed it to be from the 1500's, pointing out the melody is more modern, and citing the 1880's broadsheet

There are 2 tunes commonly used for these words (or varients therof) the more modern is to be found in collections of the more sentimental and mawkish pub ballads, the earlier one is simpler (3 chords, no modulation) and this is the tune that appears on the ballad sheet published by Devlin in Dublin and dated 1888. The words are slightly different to ost recorded versions that I have heard but hey, this is 'folk' music (whatever that it;-)

And finally our own sister project Wikisource has this on it:

Pete St. John is known as the author of this song, at least in its popular form, but the words go back to a broadsheet ballad that was published in the 1880's. One of them was published by Devlin in Dublin with a simple tune, which is very different than that of the modern song.

Hope that helps :) -M^ask? 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed in several fora--it does not appear that there has ever been a publisher called "Devlin" in Dublin; and no copy of such a broadsheet is known to exist. Hohenloh (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on planning the sixth Philadelphia meetup, and I'm looking for ideas and votes about the place and location. Since you RSVP'd for the last one I thought you might like to weigh in. Thanks, and I hope to see you there! --TexasDex ★ 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, ^† DBD 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms-dacorum.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms-east-barnet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms-hatfield.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a fair use rationale box for [[Image:Arms-milton-k.jpg]] if you want to adopt it into another run of HeraldicBot to address all the fair use challenges. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd seen that before I started trying to fix the former local districts in London ones! Some, unfortunately, have already been deleted - some because no-one put them in the relevant article. Thanks for doing this, I think they add to an appreciation of the historic districts pages. I hope I have addressed the 'fair use' issues in Category:Coats of arms of districts abolished by the London Government Act 1963. Kbthompson (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Phoenix (computer), 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/Phoenix (computer) 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) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to multiple images. Image:Arms-hertford.jpg Image:Arms-bishops-stortford.jpg Image:Arms-broxbourne.jpg Image:Arms-hertsmere.jpg Image:Arms-north-herts.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. 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. Project FMF (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Meridian_Broadcasting.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Television_South_original_logo.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reason really. I were not aware of irc.gnome.org, but I were aware of irc.gnu.org, and since GNOME is a GNU project, I put that. -- Frap (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms-sawbridgeworth.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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Arms-welwyn-hatfield.jpg
• Image:Arms-st-albans.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:NJ Transit logo.png. 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) 08:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the ermine spot reversed? —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merely ignorance. I'll fix it tonight. Thank you for pointing it out. Marnanel (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Marnanel (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And I've generally seen the octofoil with rounder petals (sometimes with nubs at the tip), and no dividing lines at the center. —Tamfang (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Arms-berkhamsted.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) 05:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this, which you inspired: Wikipedia:Requested templates#Symbolismcruft. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 24 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) 18:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikilink Barnstar
		Awarded to Marnanel for his March 28, 2004 link edit of Tincture (heraldry). You hard and diligent work did not go unnoticed. Tripodero 0:10, 05 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Monochrome BBS. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monochrome BBS (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marnanel I wish to thank you for an answer given me on 2/4/10; it was titled "Sandy Beach". I couldn't thank the others; am not too familiar with the process...but indeed I am sure that this is the place I remember from my childhool and was just thrilled to finally get some answers. Thanks again. Lucy Varricchio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.247.140 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs United Kingdom Joseph Stalin Yoni Galatian language Efferent ducts Pressure suit Christianity Muhammad Sebastidae Autosexuality Rete testis Japan Fundiform ligament Charles Darwin India Canada Ejaculatory duct Grove (nature) Cat

Cleanup British language (Celtic) Jesus Cumbric language Merge Nazism Iraq War Add Sources Alliance Defense Fund Cecil Spring-Rice Racism Wikify Catechism of the Catholic Church Comparison of Windows and Linux Magna Carta Expand Sertoli cell Dog Pegging (sexual practice)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ovate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition. Already covered in Wiktionary.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Haruth (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cambridge-photo-sidney-hall-court.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cambridge-photo-st-johns.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Arms-sawbridgeworth.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Arms-st-albans.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Arms-ware.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Arms-welwyn-gc.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Arms-welwyn-hatfield.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crockus. Since you had some involvement with the Crockus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind that I added your signature to this list. Regular doesn't mean frequent or on a daily basis, nor does it mean with a fixed pattern (in other words, it doesn't mean regular). It just means editors who, time and again, help out at the desks. If you object to being on that list, revert immediately, of course. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marnanel,

Cheers for your response on the Comp. Helpdesk, particularly the warning about ownership of the domain, please have a mince pie on me, Darigan (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Monochrome BBS.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx a lot! Masur (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ps. could you please give me the number page? Masur (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Marnanel (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Cambridge is now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 21:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pa hwyl? Gwelaf dy fod yn weithredol ar Wiki en ond nid wyt wedi cyfrannu at Wici cy ers bron i dair blynedd. Cafwyd trafodaeth ar hyn flwyddyn yn ol yn yr adran Gweinyddwyr: gweler yma. Tybed a oes gen ti sylwadau neu gyfraniad pellach? Diolch. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aeth mis a mwy.... unrhyw sylw? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on my talk page. On another matter: Your image may give the false impression that women in general use (or used throughout history) cadency marks on their arms, indeed that they had arms at all. I think it's true to say that throughout the whole history of heraldry this has not been the case. It may well have been adopted by modern Canadian heraldry, which is a tiny sub-section of the whole discipline and is not representative of the whole. Do you think your image might be misleading on this issue? I would prefer to see cadency for women stripped out of the lead image and dealt with in a separate section called "Modern female heraldry" or such-like. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Don't think of sharing it with us. It's kinda disappointing that it doesn't occur to you to put the answer to your question for the benefit of anyone else now or in the far distant future who might want the same information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh penc. I got it wrong. I'll go take that off the penk page. Thanks for spotting that. filceolaire (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walk of Life (Dire Straits song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/annointed http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/annoint

If you prefer to use self-appointed, by all means, I concur, that also applies in this case. I must say too, that I apparently chose a less common non-standard spelling variant, but really, did that ever stop Shakespeare? Or the founders of Google[[3]]? Of course, I meant anointed in the figurative sense (see also consecrate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consecrate)

In summary, spelling ability (or lack there of) may be an indicator for how well educated someone might or might not be; however as a measure of genius it is sorely lacking. Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for your help with my C problems! 169.231.8.73 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]