User talk:Neddyseagoon/2009/May
Antoon I van Lalaing
editHello
Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Just one note/question : Shouldn't the name of the article on the English language wikipedia be something akin to "Antoine I de Lalaing", as this would have been his native name ? Generally english names are used here for nobles, alternatively local ones. Passportguy (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
editThe April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - May 2009
edit| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Hello Neddyseagoon, please be more careful next time you create an article in a page that already exists as a redirect, as you did here. Augustinus was (and now is again) a redirect for a reason: the vast majority of readers typing in that name look for the Saint of Hippo (and hence his article says at the top "Augustinus redirects here), the rest for the Saint of Canterbury, hardly anyone for the Jansenist book, which I therefore moved to a different location, restoring the redirect in the process. Str1977 (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyright problems with Fetternear Palace
edit
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Fetternear Palace, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/aug/28/guardianobituaries.obituaries. As a copyright violation, Fetternear Palace appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Fetternear Palace has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Fetternear Palace and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Fetternear Palace with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Fetternear Palace.
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Deor (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The currect structure of the above category is to divide the hill forts by historic county. Going back a bit, you made the change to the wording of the category, and I was wondering if you'd feel strongly if I removed it. My thinking is that historic counties weren't around in the Iron Age, so we may as well talk in terms of modern administrative units per WP:PLACE. Nev1 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Dates
editHi, I noticed that you have been linking some dates at Ernest Seillière recently. This practice is now deprecated. Please see WP:LINKING and WP:MOSNUM. Furthermore, there is an temporary Arbcom injunction on mass linking/delinking of chronological elements. I'm happy to respond to any inquiries you may have about the matter. Thank you for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Neddyseagoon. I'm working on articles which have direct relevance to the Roman Imperial cult and its sub-topics. I notice you started the Federal sanctuary of the three Gauls. As a working title, it serves the purpose, but the "sanctuary complex" is named after the entity of Tres Galliae (therefore in English, Three Gauls (proper noun). "Federal sanctuary" seems slightly problematic as a descriptor - I've not yet come across a better, but possibly will, in which case I'll submit it on the talk page. The "cult centre" at Lugdunum was extremely important in the development of Gallo-Roman and European culture. Most of the information in the article as it stands is supported by modern scholarship, some is not, and more is required. I've good scholarly sources and will do what I can. (I've placed a version of this comment on the article talk page you just created).
You're a far more experienced wikipedian than I - is it possible to change the heading without making too many waves elsewhere? Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)