User talk:Xanderliptak/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you
wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, kindly do so on the current talk page.

Ethiopian Review

I'm afraid Xanderliptak, that we unfortunatly can no longer claim that ethiopian review is not a reliable source as the admins on the reliable sources noticeboard have ruled that it is suitible to be used as a reliable source[1]. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting that an image you uploaded be deleted

Don't think you really understand the conventions involved. The quickest and easiest way to say that one of your images is obsoleted by another image is through Template:Badname. I don't really understand how you create such large numbers of "duplicates"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms vs. emblem

I know the difference between coat of arms and emblems. However, I've just recently had a lengthy discussion about the colloquial vs. scientific and rational naming of topics and was told that for the title of an article Wikipedia uses the term that is most commonly found in reliable English language sources. So as "coat of arms" is what the layman would call it, I guess this is what is found in most grey literature and therefore exceeds the number of topical literature calling it an emblem. That aside, I'm totally fine with calling the thing an emblem and naming the article so, because that is what it is after all. You might also want to ask for the navbox to be recoded because it is based on the standard phrase "Coat or arms of <country>", which is why "Emblem of <country>" won't be marked in bold text when you use that template in such an article. De728631 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the emblems are under coat of arms, yes, but that is a mistake made by the original author. Many of emblems have been retitled accordingly, while others still need to be. This is not a coat of arms; please see Coat of arms to see what constitutes one. Wikipedia should not perpetuate errors in terminology, especially simply because this area of study and the differences in terminology are little understood by the masses. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

On another note I noticed that you created Emblem of Eritrea as a new article. It would have been much better to simply move the Coat of arms article over there to maintain its history. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not too familiar with moving aticles, so my apologies for not doing so properly. Half of th earticles seem to be properly labeled, while the other half are incorrectly labeled, so it seems to be an error on only some of the creators parts. I do not think common use applies here because there are clear guidlines that distinguish a coat fo arms, and because heraldry is not something commonly understood by the masses and thus not something commonly known. So I would like to correct the terms before Wikipedia helps spread the misknowledge and confuses more individuals. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia coat of arms

While you may find it ridiculous to "lump" the article into two sections, it is done because they are short sections. The historic section consists of only three paragraphs, there is no need for two sections for three paragraphs. If you would like to divide the historic section, then please add to the length of the article. The recent section may be divided into Soviet and current sections as they are a bit longer. Nonetheless, your editing leaves far too much dead space. Also, it gets rid of two relevant images, and falsely applies the arms of Bosnia to Herzegovina. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My version follows the Coat of arms of Germany model. Which gives a brief background of the coa used and then displays it below. There were other changes including the addition of the correct infobox. Also BiH was never in the soviet union. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia coat of arms, part II

That style of emblem is referred to as Soviet or Socialist, so they are interchangeable as far as I am concerned. If you believe Soviet is misleading, I will change it to Socialist. As for the format, the German article works because there are many more images to display, and it does not leave the dead space when applied to this article. Citing one random article for precedence is rather useless, because I can point you to hundreds that mimic this articles formatting as is where you point to one. Bosnia simply does not have enough int he article, written or visual, to support a change to the German article format. It just looks bad; like the article is trying to hide the short paragraphs by adding large empty spaces with a little image at the centre. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I was simply showing you what I was aiming for. My version divides the paragraphs and the COAs in accordance to the specific historical time periods in which they were used, not by styles like "soviet". The coat of arms used during the Austro-Hungarian occupation alone has three and shouldn't be bunched with two others that aren't related to it. Your argument is purely about aesthetics. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia coat of arms, part III

Aesthetics is why I argue against the formatting of image sas you had, to rid of white space. Editrializing is why I object to subsectioning each paragraph. A single paragraph is not enough to support the creation of a subsection; as you can see. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia coat of arms, part III, continued

While each paragraph represent a different period in time, they are short and each period has its own distinct paragraph. They all are historic, therefore they are grouped together under that moniker. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia coat of arms, part IV

So what exactly did you expand? I see one extra image, which is under the Fojnica armorial section which is not from the Fojnica armorial. Also, you have made some errors labeling the images. Is there a reason you keep adding the dead space as well? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Poorly done? factual errors? Are you even familiar with the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Stop omitting images simply to have one row and no "dead space". ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not being unreasonable, I am simply saying that the sections as you want them are too short. Three sections for three paragraphs is unnecessary. Expand the sections and then break them up. Not every paragraph needs a header. s for the placement of images, yes, there is too much dead space. There is no getting around that. Bosnia and Herzegovina do not have enough heraldic variety to get around it. You have attempted to post the same arms, though in different styles, to take up room, but that is redundant and serves no purpose. The German article format just does not work here. It does not work many places, which is why you do not see it in other heraldry articles. Now, if you want me to waste my time looking for the format policies of Wikipedia against dead space, single paragraph sections and double image postings, then I will do that for you. If you would like to look those up yourself, I would much appreciate that as well, because I always forget where they are and it takes me so much time to find them. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Too short? Sections are created by topic not based on length. The images under the AH section are not redundant as they are COA's of three separate entities (two provinces and one condominium). The only other alternative is to present them by image stacking or as you did by omitting one and bunching the remaining two with unrelated COAs. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 01:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The two gold shields are the same arms, just done in different styles, and the version you labeled as from the post-annexation period is taken form the book Oesterreichisch-Ungarische Wappenrolle, which was printed in 1890. Now, should I, as you had of me, ask if you know anything about Bosnia? Because if you do then you realize that such arms could not be form the post-annexation period as that did not occur for nearly two decades after the book was published.

And the arms by the Dutchman are irrelevant to the Fojnica armorial, so should not be listed under that section. You claim that different time periods need their own section, but you yourself post the Dutchman's painting with the armorial despite a 320 year time gap, with the Dutchman's version representing Bosniaduring the Ottoman conquest. That hypocritical of you, to lecture about the ills of grouping together such vast and different arms and then go and do the same yourself. You are simply reposting the same arms, just labeling them different to take up space, to try and minimize my complaint.

Oh, and heading of "Historic arms" covers everything that is presently included, from the Fojnica armorial, the kingdom to the Austro-Hungarian occupation. The paragraphs are grouped by subject, that all the arms presented therein are historic. So there should be no issue.

And, again, it just looks bad. I do not know why you are so persistent on using the German article format. It is the odd-man out. There are dozens of other heraldry articles under the current format, with the article and a gallery of arms at the end. Yet, you wish to persist that this one article must be the way to format the Bosnia and Herzegovina article. It is not a precedent. It just is not.

And I said repeatedly, just expand the article if you want to break up the "Historic arms" section. You added nothing. You just changed the format. The format is fine as is, I prefer it and no other editor has tried changing it. Add something and then change it appropriately to fit the changes. There is no reason to so drastically change the look of an article no one had issue with. There is no reason to subdivide short sections into single paragraph sections. It is fine as is. When you lengthen the article, then it will need change. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the changes you reverted that I made regarding the actual history of BiH, namely that occupation occured in 1878 not annexation. TBH heraldry is not my strong point and from what I gathered the flag was changed after annexation and I assumed the COA was also. The dutch Fojnica armorial is the same coat arms only slightly modified, I figured it was better to include where its relevant than to just ignore it all together. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 04:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Back in the day, that is before the 18th century, coats of arms were usually spread by simple and crude drawings called tricks. If you never seen one, it is hard to describe, but basically you would have an outline drawing of the coat of arms with either arrows and colour guides written all over or lines drawn in certain ways, horizontal, vertical, diagonal to the right, criss-cross, that showed what colour went where. Anyways, quite a mess, and thus quite many errors. Books were expensive and hard to come by, so these tricks were drawn small so to fit as many into a book, thus reducing the cost of production. The Dutchman's version, though it does look similar because of the gold shield and red inner shield, is actually quite different. The gold portion you notice a slatire, or X pattern, that is supposed to be black and have raised edges like a gear on both sides; the Dutchman's has the edges only on one and he did not know what color so he made it a criss-cross pattern. Also, the original has two Moore's heads atthetop, though hard to make out, while the Dutchman's is lacking them. The version is worthless to include, which is a shame because it is a nicer painting.

As to the arms of the condominium, it is most likely both divisions kept their respective arms and displayed them side by side when appropriate, a fashion that the Austro-Hungarians were common to employ because of their Dual Monarchy.

Yes, the article should read occupation, and needs changed.

A good 1/3 of the job of editors is to make the article appealing to look at. Research, verifying, writing takes up the rest. But it is meaningless if no one wants to look at the article. This is not merely for Wikipedia, but for print encyclopedias as well, and they spend a good portion of their budgets on editors that simply arrange and resize photos and text and captions just to be appealing to the eye. That is why printers invented justified alignment for text, because readers simply enjoy it more to look at a well ordered page. So again, I do not have issue with you wanting to rearrange the page, but simply as the page stands now, it is just too unattractive in the German article format. Once some more information is added to the historic arms section, then it can be split up without looking barren. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox heraldic achievement

What are you trying looking to achieve with the use of this infobox? I ask only because we've got the Infobox coat of arms which is well used throughout the project, and works fine. If there are improvements to the status quo, I suggest they would be better made as alterations to the current coat of arms infobox, since this will automatically updated across all uses. In any case, I suggest a moriatum on its use until the issue's raised at a discussion forum of some sort, probably WT:HV. This way, we can see what the best plan would be. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What am I trying to achieve? I find your question and insinuations rather odd.

Anywyas, the other infobox is oddly built, and is inadequate to be used on national emblems which are often not a coat of arms nor herldic in nature. The other infobox is employed for these non-heraldic emblems and described under escutcheon, despite no shield being present in them. The whole section of an armiger and torse is unnecesary. One would know the armiger either to be the article's subject or the armiger is listed in the infobox header. There is no reason to have a torse section sicne not every coat of arms has a torse, but often have a crest cornet; it would be better written as mantling, as even arms with a crest coronet have mantling. I have no idea then where one would expect to write the mantling out in the other infobox. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Romania

I'm sorry for the tone of the above message, it's not what I intended. Well, as you can see, Template:Infobox coat of arms only requires an image and title (it would look too odd without); you can have any combination. Why do you think it is oddly built? It looks to me like a standard infobox layout. On a specific note though, the armiger is not always obvious. For example, the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. As I mention, if it's obvious, you don't need to use the armiger= field in the template. The full list of possible fields includes suitable places to include mantling, coronets, etc. if relevant to the infobox. You are right in saying not all emblems are heraldic in nature, but for those that are (Coat of arms of..., for example), the current infobox works well. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The odd build is more to how a coat of arms is broken up by the infobox. The shield is the most important portion, evident by the use of the shield by itself in so many official aspects, so it should really be described first. There is room for a torse, but no room for mantling. Presumably then the mantling would be described in the torse section. Yet, when arms have no torse but a crest coronet, the coronet is always described with the crest, so does the mantling go in the crest section with the coronet or in the torse? If in the torse, then one must mention that the torse is non-existent. Sure, I can pick and choose where what goes, but, as has happened in the past, it gets edited by other editors who insist on using all the sections of the infobox. So, what happens is a mess of close-enoughs and not-quites with the other infobox. Then other editors insist on using that infobox for emblems that are non-heraldic simply because it is there. I wanted to provide an option for state and national emblems, and since I was doing that, also provide a cleaner heraldic option all in one. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

At current, Infobox Coat of arms (ICOA) runs: |armiger = |year_adopted = |crest = |torse = |shield = |supporters = |compartment = |motto = |orders = |other_elements = |earlier_versions = |use = which is some reflection of the physical arrangement of the items. Including additional field(s) like "mantling" or "crown/coronet" would be simple, and, in my opinion, considerably better than any large change in how we use infoboxes in the project. If anyone believes empty fields are necessary (or even preferable), I, and I imagine most of WP:HV, think they are wrong. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the current infobox is too many entries, not that there is not enough. Many editors who are only vaguely familiar with heraldry seem to believe every coat of arms must have every entry filled, thus resulting in mistakes like labeling a crown a crest, a motto scroll as supporter or compartment, purely decorative items as supporters or a compartment and so on. Limiting it to the basics like I had done simplifies it and streamlines it. That, and I also created a generic emblem section to describe national emblems that are not heraldic in nature, which is not permissible with the other infobox. Emblems should not be described as if it were an escutcheon, it falsely describes the device as being heraldic, and heraldry is an Indo-European tradition that should not be pressed upon other nations as if it were the standard. Perhaps I should have merely named it info box emblem so you would feel less encroached upon? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problem per se with the new infobox, except that I think it is, as I think we are agreed upon, better suited to non-heraldic devices, most commonly emblems. For that reason I think it would be best called "Infobox emblem" and used where the device is non-heraldic. I'll see if I can put a supporting note in the ICOA documentation to the effect that the fields are optional. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Sudan

When you change the name of an article, it's incumbent upon you to make sure that the contents of the article are properly synchronized with the new name... AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The edit your reverted here was distinguishing between European heraldry and the heraldry of other cultures. If you are of such a strong belief that this distinction is not necessary I'm curious as to why you are not editing the out the non-European references. Tiderolls 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on my user talk. Tiderolls 02:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

---

What other cultures have coats of arms that do not include shields? It is a requirement. Without a shield, it is not a coat of arms, but a badge, emblem or other device. If it does not follow heraldic tradition, it is not heraldry, either.

And why would I edit out non-European countries? They have heraldry and coats of arms, too. Canada, South Africa, Nigeria, Russia, Bahrain and so many more. They all include the necessary shield as well. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you didn't read the article...amazing. You're making my point. A coat of arms IS a badge, emblem and other device. In Europe (and other cultures) those badges, emblems and other devices are depicted on shields. However, that is not the case in every culture. The point I was trying to make about the non-European cultures was if you do not see the need for the distinction then I don't understand your tolerance of the other cultures' conventions being in the article at all. Please take the time to read the article. Regards Tiderolls 02:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the European designation is that the United States, Canada and briefly some African nations are mentioned, which clearly are not European but have heraldry and coats of arms nonetheless; yes, because European powers introduced the tradition there, but the geographic designation is still in error, especially since Near and Middle Eastern cultures have heraldry like Europe. Yes, the mons is mentioned, but it is labeled as an equivalent, and can receive a mention so long as it is not falsely put forward as heraldic, but as a Japanese practice.

Oh, and a badge is an heraldic device that is not a coat of arms. Badges and coats of arms are distinct, just as a crest and escutcheon are distinct. All coats of arms are emblems, but not all emblems are coats of arms. All badges are emblems, but not all emblems are badges. All mons are emblems, but not all emblems are mons. Et cetera. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, badges are distinct from coats of arms in European heraldry. Seriously, your POV is too narrow. That is why I questioned your reverting my edit while leaving the non-European content in the article. Either the phrase "coat of arms" is to be defined in a more broad sense than you are allowing, or the non-European content must go. You can't have it both ways. Tiderolls 02:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Heraldry exists outside Europe, it has since its conception, so it is incorrect to restrict it in the first sentence to Europe only. Now, how is this too narrow? You want to limit it to Europe, I want to expand it to anywhere heraldry exists. My expanse is narrowing? That does not make sense. How does limiting it to Europe like you suggest allow mention of Canada, the United States and Japan, but my removal of Europe means only European nations are mentionable? You seem to be mixed up in your argument. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Focus...this conversation began when you reverted my edit which distinguishes European heraldry from other forms. I do not want to limit the article to Europe. If the article is to contain the herladry of other cultures, then the distinguishing characteristics of European heraldry need to be included. The reason I seem mixed up to you is that you cannot justify your reversion. Tiderolls 03:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you do not want to limit heraldry to Europe, why are you arguing that the first sentence limit it to Europe? I am just confused by you. You tell me to put the European designation back in then say you want to include countries outside of Europe. In Europe, a coat of arms is a design on a shield. In Asia, coat of arms is a design on a shield. In the Americas, a coat of arms is a design on a shield. In Africa, a coat of arms is a design on a shield. What is the point of the Europe mention when it is the same everywhere?

I think you are confusing emblem design for heraldry. Say for the UK, the coat of arms of the UK are the arms of HM Elizabeth II; the seal of the UK is a design that shows HM Elizabeth II enthroned with all her royal regalia. The first device is a coat of arms and is heraldic, it is heraldry; the second device is a seal, and is not a coat of arms nor heraldry. So a mons is not a coat of arms, nor is a badge, nor a totem and so forth, they are emblems. They are distinctly seperate and should not be called coats of arms.

As for reasoning for reverting, again I mention that coats of arms exist outside Europe, in the United States, in Canada, in Kenya, South Africa, Australia and Russia and Nigeria and so on, so it is not true that in Europe this is what a coat of arms is. Anywhere you go, that is what a coat of arms is. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear; I am not lobbying for the phrase to be incorporated into the first sentence. I do not even know how you took that as my position, but moving on; can we agree that "coat of arms" is basically a European description? I will assume that you agree (I could be wrong, please let me know). If this is the case, and the emblems, badges and other inheritable totems of other cultures are included in the article, then those factors that are conventional for European heraldry need to be included for clarity (just as any distinctive characteristics for the non-European emblems and badges would be necessary). I would not say it is absolutely necessary that any of the European characteristics be included in the lead, but wouldn't that be logical as the article is based on a phrase of European origin? I fully support the broad interpretation of "coat of arms" as an inheritable insignia deriving from a need for identification during battle of any kind. However, that does not change the fact that we are discussing an article that deals mainly with a European system. Is that any clearer? Tiderolls 03:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no need to lecture me on heraldic convention...I am not a novice. Tiderolls 03:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought your protest to my edit was to edit back in the European distinction in the first sentence.

I suppose by European you are meaning Western? That you include Canada and the United States in the "European" grouping? I still would have issue with Western, though, because of the Near & Middle Eastern traditions that date back to the same date. I do not think other emblems and traditions should be described in depth here, but notable mentions can be listed in brief summary with a link to their respective article. Mons should not have an image nor so much written of it. I reorganized the article a bit, putting them in a section that labels them as similar to coats of arms but to be described as distinct still. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, western definitely. Canada and the US would have no heraldry if not for Europe (now I'm lecturing you...apologies). I'm of two minds regarding the near and far eastern emblems being included in the article. On one hand coat of arms is a European(Western) phrase. I do, however, find the facts on the emblems and badges of other cultures very interesting. I believe they do require mentioning if only for contrast and comparison. They might even deserve their own articles if those articles don't yet exist (sources would be very problematical I'm guessing). I am not digging my heels in over the phrase being in the first sentence. That's simply where I found it when I reverted the IP that removed it. It seemed eminently logical that the distinction be made in light of the other heraldic cultures being outlined in the article. I haven't put forth much effort into the heraldry articles as they were highly developed by the time I registered here. If you think the article(s) have issues that require attention, I would be glad to hear your ideas and join you on the article talk pages. Thanks for being patient with this discussion. Regards Tiderolls 04:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit of a stickler when it comes to these terms, as I do not like seeing them used incorrectly. Nor do I like seeing mons, for example, described as the "heraldry of Japan", especially since mons predate armorial bearings by nearly 400 years; that makes heraldry the mons of the West, if anything. So, when I come to this article, I expect and I will edit as though it can only be referring to coats of arms in the Indo-European tradition, not to be expanded to include mons, totems, badges or other types of emblems. Those, yes, should have their own article. They should be mentioned here, but clearly defined as being different and independent, so those unfamiliar with heraldry can perhaps learn what a proper coat of arms is, as well as pick up some cultural learning. It would be like seeing a cat but calling it a dog because they both have four legs, a tail and are furry; close enough, so why worry over minor details? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms/armorial

Whilst "armorial" is a better term that "coat of arms" for those including extra features, it is not used on Wikipedia other than to discuss the use of the terms themselves. I just thought I let you know, and to suggest you don't change from one to the other other than with an additional circumstance. There are two reasons for the status quo, firstly that the common name is "coat of arms" and secondly that it is this term that is widely used in reliable sources; of course, "armorial" is, as I say, not wrong (except in page titles, where common name gains additional weight). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As a noun, armorial means a list of coats. —Tamfang (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Habsburg-Lorraine

The Habsburg-Lorraines are the successor house of the Lorraines and belongs then on the Lorraine article and not the Habsburg article. The Habsburgs died out in the 18th century, and the article mentions this and ends with them. So why include information of the Habsburg-Lorraines into the 20th century? Especially since the Habsburg-Lorraines are a different house, the successor cadet branch of the Lorraines. There is no reason to confuse readers, not blur the line of the Habsburg and Lorraine Houses, nor have redundant information on one article and in another. Having two articles for Habsburg-Lorraine will also cause editing issues, where one eiditor will add to one article, then a second editor to the second article, then a third editor seeing the two articles paste one over the other and loose information. They need to be distinctly separate. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What you think about new article Habsburg-Lorraine (now it is only redirect to House of Lorraine)? I think, that deserves own article and can be created from articles House of Lorraine and House of Habsburg.--Yopie (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Habsburg-Lorrianes are the Lorraines, they simply changed their name after the Habsburgs died out. Marie Theresa was a Habsburg that held a title herself, which was forbidden but after winning a war was allowed to nonetheless. I believe she was Queen of Bohemia. Anyways, a Lorraine was wedded to her, and then he claimed the name of Habsburg for his own, adding it to his ancestral Lorraine surname. Not that the Lorraine name was dishonourable, but the Habsburg name held much more weight in European circles. Anyways, it would be like you taking the name of your wife and then trying to argue you are no longer part of your family but somehow are and always have been part of your wife's family. Or that somehow by taking her name, that you created a whole new family that is independent from either family's history. Granted, the Habsburg-Lorraine name is known more than simply the Lorraine name, but they are connected because they are the same uninterrupted family line. Simply a name change. I don't think that anyone or any family should receive an article for every time the go through a name change. Like a movie star having an article pre-Hollywood name and post. Unless the Lorraine article gets much too long, I don't think a new article is needed just yet. There is no need to splice something that is not that large to begin with. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. If your logic is working, merge House of Windsor to House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or House of Glücksburg or House of Oldenburg. The same was House of Romanov. And same is House of Orange-Nassau, House of Nassau, House of Mecklenburg and Lippe. Simply, names of reigning houses are different from commoners surname. --Yopie (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The House of Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp is merged with the House of Romanov. The House of Windsor is a junior offshoot of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, not the successor house, so they are treated as different because Windsor would have no claim to the titles and territories of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Anyways, one can go back and forth with precedence, so it really is a case by case decision. As of now, I do not believe that Lorraine is a large enough article to warrant splitting. Most of the article is of ancestral houses that do not have their own articles, and even with all of that, it still is rather a short article. It is not that I would object to a Habsburg-Lorraine article, just that I never support splicing articles if it leaves two stubs or starter pages. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Words as words

FYI, see WP:ITALIC#Words as words: Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction). (Nothing in that section about foreign words.) — Also I think you misunderstood the phrase term of art (which is an example of itself). —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think heraldry counts as a technical term, so should not be italicised. As for the other terms used to describe a coat of arms, it is not necessary to italicize such terms but it very well could be, so I left those italicised as you preferred. And, yes, foreign words are to be italicised, so to avoid any confusion with a native word. It prevents any confusion with native words, whetehr such a word exists in the native language or to avoid confusion with sometimes similarly spelled words. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Did I italicize heraldry? I don't remember a context when I'd have done so. As for the other words in question (device and so on), I italicized them only in a sentence about the words. —Tamfang (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

When you reverted my edit, it changed heraldry in the opening sentence back to italics, so I thought it was your doing as well. If not, my mistake. I thought whomever did one did the rest, so I just took them all out thinking it was all a bit overboard together. I have no particular issue with the alternate names being italicised, though from what I have seen on Wikipedia such format is not usually followed. Once italics or bold text is introduced into an article, some editors tend to see it and take it to an extreme. And I hate that. Reading some sentence where the editor randomly tries to direct attention to a favourite fact or whatnot of his. So I try to be as minimalist as possible is all. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Streator Township High School

I have reverted your redirect regarding this article. Please see: Talk:Streator_Township_High_School or Talk:Streator,_Illinois#Streator_Township_High_School for the explanation. Ljmajer (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Knight Bachelor cut and paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Knight Bachelor a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

NB. Incidentally, you will need a source for your capitalisation version and for it not being a "proper title." Regards, Woody (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia has it lowercase here. It is not a proper title, so is not capitlised, like The King of England, or The Duke of Wellington. When not a proper title, they become simply king, duke and knight bachelor. There is an Imperial Society of Knight Bachelors, which use the capitalisation because it is the title given to the members of that Society, and this may be the source of the confusion. However, knight bachelor is a general term used across Europe as the lesser of the two knighthoods, the other being Knight banneret, which is correctly not capitalised. So if the cut and paste is not preferred, could I ask that you move Knight Bachelor however way would be? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Emblem of the Comoros has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you two discuss this at Talk:Emblem of the Comoros, please? Amalthea 12:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Your talent is amazing! I could not find your email. Do you have any interest in drawing the coat of arms of the Princes Lichtenberg?

Karl Schroeder Private Secretary to the Fürst von Lichtenberg User:Lichtenberger

Hello, and thank you for your kind words. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the Princes of Lichtenberg, and since it is something I do in my spare time I tend to focus on those articles that I am most familiar with. Though, I do not see an article on the Princes of Lichtenberg in Wikipedia to even illustrate. If you or the Prince were seeking a commission for personal arms, I can take on such work. I can be reached either at xanderliptak@live.com or xander@alexanderliptak.com. My website is www.alexanderliptak.com. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I will see about creating a Wikipedia article, history is important to share. I have also sent you a email to you @alexanderliptak.com email address thank you for your time. - Karl Schroeder User:Lichtenberger

Hello xanderliptak, you might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Lichtenberg which identified this "noble House" and the related territory as bogus. Should you actually have accepted a commission for this file I hope you didn't charge any money for it. De728631 (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

JPG → SVG?

Hi again. As you might've guessed I'm not a prince and I won't pay you money but for WP's quality improvement I'd like to ask if you could vectorize this file? I fail at using Inkscape and the like. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am also unfamiliar with converting images to SVG format, I work in JPG and PNG mostly. I believe I came across a Wikipedia page that deals with converting images to SVG somewhere, and I will try to search it out and see if I can find it or if I was mistaken. If I find it I will let you know and post your image therein. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 12:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Thanks a lot. De728631 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me first apologize for not notifying you sooner. I have posted your request at Commons:Graphics_village_pump, where I was directed to also post it at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop. It is something done at leisure of editors and contributors, and there are a few other requests before yours, but with patience it should be accomplished in due time. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 11:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for posting my file around, I'll have a look at the relevant sites :) Cheers, De728631 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this spiky intrusion. I've just read your profile and saw that are really fond of diverse cultures and most particularly in their heraldry, so I guess this curiosity and interest towards foreign conceptions help you understand what are an endangered language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on working on those beautiful coats of arms and emblems that are so pleasant to the eye! Capsot (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not a fan of userboxes, but I did provide the link on my page so that I am listed under the category lending my support. I do not familiarize myself with Wikipedia nor Wikimedia culture much, so am not very familiar with what is required of the chapters, or if it is possible or wanted that a chapter exist across boundaries. But, the world is not so clean-cut-a-place to fit neatly within predetermined borders, so good luck to you and your effort. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, many thanks, I am really grateful, if you ever need something from me about Catalan or Occitan coats of arms, emblems or anything else, just let me know, take care and have a wonderful weekend! Capsot (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Escutcheon of Bosnia from 1340 by Alexander Liptak.png

I have removed the {{speedy}} from this. Neither Turelio nor I can find the higher grade image which you mention. If, indeed, you have an identical higher quality image, upload it over this. In any case, when you tag an image with speedy, tell us where the new image is.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Arms of Mary of Hungary

I've been editing the article about Mary of Austria (1505-1558) and I thought that having her coat of arms would be useful. There is a coat of arms at the Commons (File:Blason MariedeHongrie.svg), but I'd like to have a coat of arms identical to the one above Mary's tomb (see File:GrabMaria von Ungarn.jpg). According to the Women in heraldry article, this was indeed her coat of arms during her marriage, but there are no sources to confirm that she ever used it. On the other hand, the coat depicted above her tomb is (again, according to the Women in heraldry article) the coat she used as a widow. The image of her tomb is the only source we've got and a very reliable one as well. I'd appreciate if someone could create the coat of arms that resembles the one above her tomb (on a lozenge, with a cordeliere) or at least tell me how I can do it myself. Thanks, Surtsicna (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The SVG image is correct, and shows the same arms from the tomb image. While it would be more common to display the arms of a woman on a lozenge, it is not unheard of nor improper to have them on a shield and would be wasted time and effort for so meaningless a change. Also, the cords are not part of the armorial device but a courtesy to show that Mary was a widow, so the cords should not be included unless specifically pointing out that her husband has died before her. So the SVG image is fine and accurate. The coat of arms could be more complete, though, if it also displayed her crown, however the tomb image is cropped and her crown is not visible. I would have no issue drawing up something new if you could find or were aware of which crown she was entitled to. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. The problem is that I need the coat of arms for the section about her widowhood and that I need the coat of arms to be sourced (i.e. to avoid original resarch at all costs). I don't have any sources which describe her coat of arms except for the photograph and so I need a coat of arms that resembles the one in the photograph. I can't prove that she ever displayed her coat of arms on a shield. I don't insist on the cords but the arms will be used in the section about her widowhoow and should describe her as a widow. I know little about heraldry so I don't even know which types of heraldic crowns exist; Mary was queen of Hungary and Bohemia, so I guess she was entitled to the Holy Crown of Hungary and the Crown of Saint Wenceslas. Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Though she was a queen, she was the queen consort and may not have been allowed the use of those crowns for her personal arms. I will look about and see if I can find another image of her tomb and see what crown is used, and then make a drawing for you. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is File:Coat of arms of Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary by Alexander Liptak.png, not sure where you were wanting it in the article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the arms in Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary#Regency in Hungary and marriage proposals. Thanks once again. Surtsicna (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The arms as you requested.

File:Coat of arms of Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary by Alexander Liptak.png

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

They look wonderful! Thank you for your effort. The arms will significantly enhance the quality of the article, which I have nominated for GA status. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Marie of Hungary

hello

File:Coat of arms of Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary by Alexander Liptak.png. this coat of arms is not good because it is "white and red" and not "red and white". see you --Chatsam (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup for catching my error so quickly, it has been fixed. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

about which portrait you speak to me ? Chatsam (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The file you listed here, File:Coat of arms of Mary of Austria, Queen of Hungary by Alexander Liptak.png. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is another coats of arms as queen of Hungary [2]. Sorry for my english also. --Chatsam (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The version I had made is based upon the arms over the Queen’s tomb, so I am confident it is accurate. She likely had right to several quarters, though, but might have only used the simple version comprised of two halves out of simplicity towards the end of her life. She may then have used several different versions throughout her life. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC) [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for cleaning the Cook image up, looks much better. Regards. Justin talk 08:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, but it was nothing. Took only a couple minutes to grey-scale and increase the contrast a bit. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Leo XIII

Hi, why did you change this coa? [3]? --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the SVG image is not very detailed or artistic. Though it seems another editor prefers the SVG and already replaced it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

O'Neill coat of arms

File:Coat of arms of the Uí Néills, Princes of Tyrone by Alexander Liptak.png

Please be careful when adding coats of arms to articles about medieval Irish kings. Coats of arms were unknown in pre-Norman Ireland. Post-Norman Invasion, there is no evidence that I am aware of that the O'Neill's adopted any English-style coat of arms before their final defeat in 1603. Also, can you provide a source for the arms that you have drawn? On a quick search of the net, there is nothing similar in a Google image search or on dedicated sites such as araltas.com or the Coat of Arms Store. Finally, if adding images of coats of arms, please do not enlarge the thumbnail. There is no reason why an image of a coat of arms should dominate an article. Scolaire (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You do not seem to be familiar with heraldry, but the links you provided show a white shield with a red hand. My image shows a white shield with a red hand. The scrolling ornature outside the shield are meaningless and do not change the arms, and it was a very popular style throughout the 17th century up until the mid 19th century, a style which I mimicked for this version because there is no crest for the arms and it fills the dead space.

I do not know what you mean by "English styled", but coats of arms are not an English phenomenon.

As for this enlarging the thumb, as you accused, please be aware the standard thumb size is 220px. So by placing images at 200px, it is actually slightly smaller than the thumb size, and is by no means an attempt to dominate an article if it comes in at 20px smaller than the standard sizing. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexander, however talented you may be at designing coats of arms, Scolaire has rightly signalled a few problems here. First of all, you haven't provided any reliable secondary source for your reconstruction, which you may not come across at popular heraldry websites, but which is much needed here at Wikipedia. Second, you can't make it seem as if it were representative of the Uí Néill / O'Neill throughout history when those coats of arms became popular only as late as the early modern period. Third, if the ornature is meaningless, why provide it at all? That only muddles things. Cavila (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What an odd request. I should limit my illustrations, which are accepted by the Heraldry WikiProject mind you, because you personally don't know much about the subject? Since Wikipedia's goal is to expand knowledge, not censor it to conform to preconceived notions which may be inaccurate, consider this an exercise in expanding your knowledge on heraldry. Ornature is added not because it is meaningful, but because it is considered beautiful. I am sorry that you may not be interested in beautifying Wikipedia, but I am; this is actually the reason I spend time illustrating for Wikipedia.

I do not attribute the arms to people that never used them, but to descendants of thos people who indeed did use them. Perhaps this is too far removed from the subject of the concerned articles, but these articles have one or even no images whatsoever. When there are more relevant images found to be used, then replace the coat of arms image. 'Til then, it does no harm.

How about I use as my source for the white shield and red hand in my image the white shield and red hand found in WikiMedia Commons already? Or the sources already provided above? Or both? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 11:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Errr, hate to break this to you, but it's not me you would be doing a favour: ever heard of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, created in the not so recent past? Now, I understand you were merely trying to replace the old image with one which is more accurate, apart from the fluff, and arguably better looking, to boot, but at least try to be careful about the context in which you place the image, clarify if necessary, and produce some proper references (which shouldn’t be too difficult). That's all. Cavila (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I've no particular view on the rights or wrongs of this debate, but can anyone provide a link to the O'Neill 'arms' as approved by the Chief Herald of Ireland, or does such an 'official' design not exist? RashersTierney (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

These arms pre-exist the heralds and their authority over Ireland. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 11:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not what I asked, but thanks anyway. RashersTierney (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Then to more directly answer your question, no. You can not ask the Chief Herald of Ireland, created in 1943, or the Ulster King of Arms, created in 1552, for records prior to the mid-16th century because, well, they don‘t exist. Ireland did not regulate heraldry through law like England did, so there are no ‘official’ records of arms. This is the same practice in France, Italy, Germany and so forth, and many of the arms you see used by popes, noble and royal families had no ‘’de jure’’ designation, just a ‘’de facto’’ use. There is also no set design. The O’Neills of Ulster use a red left hand cut at the wrist on a white shield, and any way you draw it, realistic, Impressionistic, Cubistic, ornate, Surrealistic, Modernistic, cartoonish, is fine so long as it is a red left hand cut at the wrist on a white shield of some sort. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 12:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comprehensive reply. Appreciate the trouble. RashersTierney (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It is no problem. I hope I did not come across too aggressive. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 12:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. RashersTierney (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I know about the red hand. There are many variations. I've searched out some links for you that might help.

"The Red Hand of Ulster's a paradox quite,
To Baronets 'tis said to belong;
If they use the leftwo hand, they're sure to be right,
And to use the right hand uld be wrong.
For the Province, a different custom applies,
And just the reverse is the rule;
If you use the right hand you'll be right, safe and wise,
If you use the left hand you're a fool."

This first one is a bit like yours: [4][5][6][7][8][9]

Are you from Ireland?Malke2010 02:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another [10]Malke2010 02:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. My maternal grandmother comes from O'Neill and Kennedy Irish families, which led me to take an interest in the articles concerning those families. Since heraldry is also my interest, I tend to focus more towards that. A common error with the O'Neills is forgetting which hand to use, and which hand is for Ulster, and an encyclopaedia should not continue so common a mistake. Thanks again. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people don't know the left from the right hand, :D, which is why I posted that poem on your page. We're from Kilkenny. Do you know the coat of arms for the Fitzgeralds?Malke2010 08:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you related to one of the Fitzgerald families? I know of the arms of two Fitzgeralds, one a duke the other an earl. Mr. Medevev of Russia, I do not know if you have seen his work, but he has rather the amusing rendition of the duke's arms, with the monkeys and all. Then there are a few Fitzgeralds that have crests listed in a book I have, I am sure some are related since they are knights and all and likely appointed such because of their relationship.

Seems the Kilkenny arms in the Wikipedia article could use some work, too. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we're Fitzgeralds, knights and hooligans. And not all from Kilkenny. I'll have to check with my family, we have a relative who is knowledgeable on these matters. But if you have any images, I'd appreciate seeing them. Thanks.Malke2010 09:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never personally made a drawing of the Fitzgeralds yet. I was familiar with them through Mr. Medvedev and through the arms of John Kennedy, who descended form teh Fitzgeralds of Desmond. Since the Fitzgerald article wrongly presents the viscount's arms as the duke's, perhaps I should next have a go at the duke's arms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be interested to see your rendering of that. Also, I'm sending you an email with some more family background. Not sure if we're related to Rose Fitzgerald. My cousin is getting better at uncovering family ties so maybe we are afterall.Malke2010 09:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, check email.Malke2010 09:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. O Fenian (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have raised your misuse of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. O Fenian (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Prince of Tyrone coat of arms

Hello Alexander.

My name is Adrian Tyrone de Larrain and according to my family I am the primogeniture to the Prince of Tyrone, my father being the 52nd Prince of Tyrone. I actually love this coat of arms, extremely well done. As long as there is a white shield with a red hand it absolutely represents the O’Neills of Tyrone. I was wondering though, about the design encompassing it as well as the crown on top. Is that a Spanish marquis crown?206.116.73.178 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. The scrolling ornature is simply decorative, since there is no crest or mantling to decorate the shield with. I do not like to leave noble or royal arms simpler than a commoners arms. As for the coronet, it is a generic coronet used in mediaeval times in the British Isles to denote a royal family. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-adding coat of arms

Please self-revert your re-addition of the disputed image on articles. It is in breach of consensus over several talk pages. Your edits are disruptive. --Scolaire (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Breach where? You proposed the arms were incorrect, as did the other editor. You discovered this was not the case. You and one editor find them ugly, fine. I have three editors that have expressed they do not, four including me. And I have had my images posted on the O'Neill dynasty page for a year, so there seems to be an unspoken consensus that my images are acceptable. You are one person with a personal agenda, it does not have the weight to keep this going any longer. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the bot-like application by you of this disputed graphic has seriously backfired, and I would also request that you self-revert until this issue has been settled at a centralised discussion. Upping the ante during a heated dispute is rarely a good strategy. RashersTierney (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor maintaining issue admitted there was no flaw in the accuracy or depiction. Simply because now he is resorting to "it's ugly" does not matter. That was not the issue, and it is a last resort after the argument failed on the revert notice board, conflict of interest notice board, original research notice board and the WikiProject Heraldry, which do not take aesthetics into consideration. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of the details of the discussion above, but the trend I see here is a backlash against these self-made art that may eventually lead to a community ban of Mr Liptak. It is best that he stops now in a friendly manner. One can not get that many users angry and continue on Wikipedia. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not, so please read the comment on your talk page before you speak too much. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms

Hello, it appears that you are adding your own artistic versions of coats of arms of pope Leo XIII to several pages. These are replacing the official images from the Vatican and are "less accurate" from the original. I have reverted them, and I see that other people above are having problems with this. Wikipedia is not a self-publishing website for the display of your own images. Please stop. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How are they less accurate exactly? Also, there are no official version to a coat of arms. And if that image is from the Vatican website, then it is likely a violation of copyright, the Internet is not that old after all and there is no way that the life of the author plus 70 years could have expired.

Oh, and it was a pair of editors that had issue. Of you read the arguments, you will have seen that after two talk pages, a project page and three or four notice boards, my images are still up. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the trend of placing your own creations on as many Wikipedia pages as possible has no future. Wikipedia is not LiptakPedia to be dominated with your own creations, whose accuracy is attested to by yourself. The other editors above are already unhappy with this. You can not fight that many people at once. Please stop. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I just read the image page, and it seems you were misleading when you said the image was from the Vatican. It is simply a small JPG image copied from a man's personal website dedicated to ecclesiastical heraldry. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I can not fight with that many? There are two editors against my images, and six for. You would make three. Still a two to one ratio for my favour. Also, since that image you provided was created by just some random Internet guy, your argument against my image could be applied against his. My image is merely larger and in PNG format, meaning is is better represented compressed on Wikipedia pages. Oh, and every illustrator who makes an image uploads his image and places it in the appropriate articles, so how is it different when I do such? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 14:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

First, please let us keep the discussion on your page not to duplicate it on mine. Key issue: where did you get your coat of arms for Leo XIII? It seems that http://www.araldicavaticana.com is NOT a Vatican website, as I had assumed. It is a nonprofit Italian organization, not associated with the Vatican that has hundreds of images. And I assume you are not associated with them or with the Church in Rome. Is that right? Many of the papal coats of arms seem to have come from that site. How does one know if they are accurate and how does one know if yours is accurate? I do not immediately see a Leo XIII coat of arms on the Vatican website, but those they have for John Paul II and Benedict XVI are flat and 2 dimensional, unlike your ornate rendering? Did you use your own artistic emblishments in your rendering? There is This image which is VERY different from yours, and has a VERY different color scheme. And it also differs from the araldicavaticana scheme. I think BOTH images need to be flagged as being in need of independent verification. How did you get your image? History2007 (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am not certain what you are talking about. All three images show the same ordinary, charges and tinctures. Your link here verifies that. Anything else? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but my question is not redundant. How do I know the image you created yourself is what Leo XIII considered his coat of arms? How can I verify that? How can any Wikipedia editor verify that? The link I provided shows a VERY different image, with different colors. And it does NOT have some of the artistic features your image has. Please answer my "direct question" in a direct manner. "Where did you get your image?" What was your guideline for drawing it? This is a direct question about the source of the image and deserves a direct answer. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I did answer it directly. I have no clue what you are talking about because you posted verification. If you do not understand this answer, then perhaps you do not understand what a coat of arms or heraldry is. If you do not know about the subject, do not charge me with explaining it to you. Read up on it. Then come back and read my answer and you will understand it better. And I got my image from me. Which is an odd thing to ask, considering you refer to it as my image and my drawing. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you did not tell me where you obtained the concept of your image. So I asked for a 3rd opinion on Talk:Octobri Mense. That will be the best way to clarify the issues. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is an odd question. I drew and painted the image, so I suppose I obtained it from me. Though I would thin I would not need to obtain it and it would inherently be my property upon creation. I do not know what you want me to say. Now, since you thought the three images were completely different arms and colours, I suggest you look really hard at the actual arms and also read up about the subject at Herldry and Coat of arms, and go check out a book at one of those libraries. The books tend to be quite long, but I am patient and will wait for your reply after such. It is not required of me that I explain a subject you wish to blindly argue on. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think any Wikipedia editor has the right to ask questions about the sources used in articles and for images. In any case, I will just wait for the 3rd opinion, since we are not getting very far. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

YOU POSTED A SOURCE. What can be more clear than that? You found one, and I reposted it for you in case you lost your own source. We are not getting far because you seem to not understand that when you ask for a source and provide one with the very question, it is just confusing and I do not know what more you wish me to provide. How about you take me up on the advice and read about heraldry a little so you can understand what is being said. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How about you take our advice and read Wikipedia policies a little so you can understand what is being said. If you cite a source an editor has to be able to go to that source and see that you have been faithful to that source. If you add anything, or change anything, that significantly alters the source material, then you are not being faithful to the source. It is an original work. The rules of heraldry simply do not enter into it. I don't need to know about goolies and bends to know that there are elements in your image that do not appear in any published version of Leo XIII's arms. Therefore you cannot cite any published version as the source of your image. What can be more clear than that? Scolaire (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

People like you seem to confuse an original work for original research. An original work is fine on Wikipedia. In fact, it has to be, otherwise it is a copyright violation. Original research is proposing a new idea or theory. As far as heraldry goes, it is not an original idea to use different shield shapes. Now, how about you read up on heraldry and stop wasting my time with this simply because you don’t know something. I am not here to be your teacher. There are articles, it is an encyclopedia after all, that you can read that give you all the information about this. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear on "I am not here to be your teacher". I think we all edit here to be teachers and help the readers. Of course, some people, present company excepted, may be using Wikipedia as a platform to promote some type of product or service, or spread their own name, but I am 100% sure that is not your intention here Mr Liptak. History2007 (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am here to edit articles, not be your personal tutor or teacher, so no you are not why I came here to Wikipedia. Sorry, but you are not. I would have no trouble helping someone who reads the articles, but you seem to refuse to do this. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on Irish people

Please refrain from systematic WP:Canvassing, e.g. as in User_talk:DinDraithou#Hello, User_talk:7_Letters#Hello. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was violated, and there is no rule to violate. It was polite, in the open and personalized to each editor and written to editors who were concerned with the article at hand and may not be aware of the conversation and to editors who recently worked with me through the process of making accurate arms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:Canvassing again. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It was limited, polite, open and unbiased. The most you might have is slight-partisanship, but I have interacted with the users either on the subject or during like circumstance, so they are already fully aware of my methods. But that is not a clear violation because a clear violation would be a mass message not personalized done in secret and was biased and clearly partisan. But since that was not what occurred, again, no violation. And since there are no policies, only guidelines, there can be no violations against a policy. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid an edit war, warning

You have 2 editors objecting & reverting you on Leo XIII and other related image uses. Please avoid an edit war. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd warning

You are getting to the 3 revert zone. Please stop, or you may be blocked. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a pattern to my talk page, which should be easy to notice. After all, you spend a lot of time arguing in circles here. Please conform to it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The pattern seems to be less than constructive. You have now been reverted again by another editor on Leo XIII, please do not cross the 3 revert line, since you have already done enough reverts. Moreover please note that 373 of your 2,176 edits to date have been deleted, i.e. over 17% of your edits. That is a high ratio, e.g. in my case it is 118 of my 23,911 edits, i.e. 0.4%. So your "pattern" could use improvement. Please avoid the 3 revert line. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My pattern is less than constructive? It is a talk page, there is nothing to "construct" here. Is there anything you don't hate? It is nice to know your life presently revolves around all things me at this point, but I must admit it is a bit creepy.

And back off, you are partisan because you have taken a stance in this, reverting my edits, and therefore too close to this to be threatening me. Simply because you have teamed up with another editor so you two won't surpass the three revert policy does not wash your hands of edit warring yourself. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR & Edit Warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at O'Neill dynasty. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 13:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This applies also to all the other articles you two are edit warring over. Canterbury Tail talk 13:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What do I do when the issue is referred to the relevant WikiProject, but its advice is ignored on the grounds only three weighed in? And what about when three editors dispute the WikiProject and insist their opinions make a consensus, even though three on the WikiProject did not, and then do not apply their decision to their own edits? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You get blocked for continuing to edit war despite warnings not to. 24 hours. Develop consensus, don't turn articles into a battleground.

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Canterbury Tail talk 19:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xanderliptak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

An image I uploaded and placed on O'Neill dynasty, O'Neill (surname) and Irish people is being disputed by History2007, Scolaire and O Fenian on teh grounds that the image I uploaded . Despite support from Malke2010 and Surtsicna, the band of three opposing editors have declared their unison to be a consensus several times. Other editors have asked questions, but failed to state support or opposition. The issue was taken to the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, where Tamfang and Seven Letters acknowledged the image was an appropriate and viable rendition of the coat of arms Tamfang did say he found Baroque art hideous and, because the disputed image was in Baroque style, said the image was ugly and would be inappropriate to present it as an Irish style of arms and needed to be noted in captions that the image was not an Irish example. The three opposing editors have ignored the advice of the WikiProject, as well as other sources stating the shape of a shield as being irrelevant and a print source citing the blazon to be accurate, and still demanded that I, in the words of O Fenian, "produce a reliable source matching your image". My edits for which I was blocked was merely to conform to this consensus. I did not add the disputed image, but took off all unsourced images as was the view of the three opposing editors. If I would be required to source my disputed image to an identical historical image, then the same should be required of the opposing editors. Also to note, while the opposing editors have been demanding my image be removed because it is unsourced, the other images I removed from the O'Neill dynasty and O'Neill (surname) pages (the removal of which resulting in this bock) were likewise my images. The very same editors seeking to get my images removed have now sought to have be blocked for doing just that, and the admin they used to block was not made aware of this caveat but it was presented as though it were a disruptive edit, see here. So, I would request an unblock because I merely sought to conform to the opposing editors view, and because the admin they had block me was not given full disclosure to make an informed determination.

Decline reason:

An argument over content does not justify continual reversion: that's called edit-warring. You have been here long enough to understand this policy, and how clear it is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block

The argument on the O'Neill pages is over what images to include, so all images were removed until an agreement could be reached. However, you blocked me for this, claiming I wanted an image-less version to be my version. Besides being ridiculous, you crossed a line by telling me what I want, as if you could know or as if you have been involved in the argument from the beginning and are aware of what is occurring. Please remove the images form the articles until a consensus is reached. I ask you do it, so you do not erroneously block someone again. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I never got involved in your argument. I never told you anything you wanted. Please point out where I said such things, made such claims and told you what you want. I just warned you for edit warring, and blocked you when you continued to edit war over the topic. I have no feelings, or care, for what version people end up settling on, I just care about not having pages disrupted by continual edit warring between sides. I crossed no line, and I will not get involved in the content dispute in any way. I will however not hesitate to block for disruptive editing and edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You said that the "revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring". That seems to be you telling me what I want. Now, if you took the time to read a little or go through the edits, you'd know the dispute is over which images to put in the article. I took out all images, theirs and mine, trying to deescalate the situation. You blocked me for this. Not because I was inserting disputed images, but because I was removing the disputed content. Now you simply appear partisan, blocking me for taking the middle ground and allowing the other editors to reinstate their version of the article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No you were blocked for continuing to edit war over a topic. I don't know what you want, and I don't really care. That statement I made was a general statement to say that you don't edit war to get what you want. What you want is irrelevant to me, but edit warring is not the way to get it. If my block was unjustified then another admin would have overturned it, however as it is other admins agreed to it when you requested an unblock. It was not a partisan block, it was an administrative block to prevent further edit warring between yourself and the others. I don't care who edits what or for what content, as long as it has consensus. Remember Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert blocked. Any editing disruptiveness, no matter who perpetrates it, may result in a block. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not unblocked because the admin stated I was edit warring likewise, so I suppose you both did not read the discussions. I don't think you are understanding what I am telling you. I was not edit warring. I was removing all disputed content, theirs and mine. Edit warring would be putting what I want in over theirs, them putting theirs in over mine and this process continuing. I removed their content and my content. How is that an edit war? Is that not a middle ground? If not, what is? An argument was over what to include, there are two options, and so i removed both 'til a conclusion was reached. How was that inappropriate? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't read the discussions. I have no reason to read the discussions. You were continually reverting the other editors edits. They were warned, the same as you, but you then reverted again resulting in the block. The discussions are irrelevant to the edit warring. it doesn't matter what content you're restoring, adding etc, you kept reverting and were blocked for it. Not for what discussions you were having, not for what content you did or did not want, but continually reverting other editors. There is a 3 revert limit, you were warned, you continued to revert afterwards, you were blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not violate the 3rr policy, as I did not revert an article three times within a 24 hour period. I was not warring, I was trying to maintain the medium. Do not defend the block as if you were merely carrying out the 3rr policy, your warning itself states you will ignore policy and revert what you deem fit on your own accord. If you are going to revert what you deem fit according to your personal standards, then it may be germane to know what the issue is being discussed. So, again, if you do not mind, please remove the disputed material yourself, and please note in the comments for the edit that no images should be inserted into the article until the dispute is resolved. That would be the most effective way to end this for now. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your content dispute trailed across multiple articles, disruptive editing of multiple reversions on various different articles, all part of the same content dispute. You were warned about disruptive editing, as where the other users, you choose to ignore the warning by reverting again. 3RR is not a strict must be three reversions policy, disruptive editing, no matter the number of actual reversions, is the issue here. You were edit warring, as were the other users, you were warned to stop, you continued, you were blocked.

If you want some advice, stop concentrating on your block and instead concentrate on the various Wikiprojects or the talk pages for the various articles to build a consensus for your edits. Talk to other users and try to work with them, and they will work with you. Canterbury Tail talk 22:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are not interested in the middle road? All or nothing? And what is wrong with the comment I made on the talk page? Are we supposed to pretend everyone knows everything? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned I have no idea what the dispute is about, and didn't read the talk page comments. As it's not reversion of vandalism it is a content dispute. There was disruptive editing going on that was threatening the stability of articles and that's when I came in. Canterbury Tail talk 00:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Threatening the stability of articles? What? Anyways, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with a dispute before you block people in the future. You as an admin should be promoting neutrality, not one side of the dispute. Blocking me for supporting neutrality only makes you appear partisan. Especially since the editors in question have a history of coming to you for assistance in the past. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not supporting any side of the dispute. I warned people on all sides, and have no problems with blocking the other parties if they continued, but you kept edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It is History2007, Scolaire and O Fenian opposing. It is myself, Malke2010, Surtsicna, Tamfang, 206.116.73.178 and Seven Letters in support. Also, the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology also stated the illustrations are legitimate heraldically. The consensus was to add the images, yet the three in opposition do not want to comply.

They went to one talk page, then another, to one notice board, then another, then a WikiProject, then another talk page all trying to find one discussion that would side with them. The have taken the argument personally, so they are not listening to other editors, the community nor the facts; they are simply looking for one page that they can claim out weighs the rest as they argue over policy and revert edits to stall until they can find what they need. They wanted a source, I provided it. They called for another, I provided that. They ignored the sources.

So, while they are persistent and reverting my edits and the edits of others earlier on before the supporters grew tired of it all, it is not an edit war as you continue to insist. Six against three, with a WikiProject on my side. My edits are not disruptive, but abiding by the consensus. The fact I was elimiateing the images was an attempt to calm down the opposition and alleviate some of the stress of the argument that continued despite the three being overridden. So what else was I supposed to do? Please, tell me. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please comment on improving articles, not on attacking other users as per this edit. Talk pages are for collective improvement of articles not battlegrounds or places to attack other users with comments like "You didn't want to talk about heraldry apparently because you didn't want to admit you were unknowledgeable" which are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 22:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Rolando Julio José de Yñigo y Genio

Hello. I've got a request. Will excuse me I do not speak very good English. I wonder if you can perform the following arms.

ARMS: Quarterly: 1st. and 4th. Argent, a fleur-de-lys Sable; 2nd. and 3rd. Azure, a cross fleurety Or. Bordure Gules, eight saltires Or.

CREST: Over a wreath or torse Or and Gules, a ducal coronet of the first and a winged lion issuant Sable, crowned of the first, langued of the second, holding in its dexter forepaw a sword and in the sinister a thunderbolt all Or.

MANTLING: Gules doubled Or.

MOTTO: VADE PLUS ULTRA

I'm doing an article on wikipedia and hoped to raise the shield.

Regards

Roland of Genius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.205.119 (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whose arms are these? I'd need to know so I could label and reference the arms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The coat of arms it belongs to the gentleman, Mr. Rolando Julio José de Yñigo y Genio.

There seems to already be a full emblazon on Wikipedia at File:RolandoJulioJosedeYnigoygenio.jpg. I have gotten in trouble for drawing up arms that already had a rendition available. So I must decline your request at this time. My apologies, perhaps after the issues raised elsewhere are settled I can accommodate you if you still wish to have a new emblazon. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not know he had a file. Although it lacks the ducal crown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.205.119 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking good, it lacks the ducal crown. Anyway I could make and update the uploaded file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.205.119 (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Ostoja

Greetings!

You paintings are really good and beautiful! However, I cannot tell if it follow strictly heraldic rules since I do not have enough of knowledge. Only thing I can contribute with is that there are several medieval books with true coa that should be respected and that those paintings should be the leading ground when producing coa. There are several painters and historians that change those coa which is pretty wrong. I see some 100 different coa of ostoja but none of them are correct, not even the one of professor Szymanski that is the most close. its really amazing, dont You think?

Check the medieval sources (like Armorial Gelre, Bellenville, Codex Berghammar) and do your work with respect for the medieval rules and add your sensitivity, otherwise I think your coa are excellent work!

I would also add that I personally like your coa very much, they are very creative and very beautiful but...they might not follow strict rules of heraldry and as heraldry is old and conservative science it will be difficult for You to change the world here. I would think that heraldry by itself is a subject that should not be changed but there should also be a place for artistic modifications that can be considered as art, though not heraldic coa, they would then be artistic coa :)

Sincerely Camdan (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I do adhere to the heraldic rules, and even help blazon, design and emblazon coats of arms on several heraldry societies and forums. I have studied up for several years on the subject, and have had my work published in a Serbian heraldry journal and on a few heraldry websites.

There is no requirement that a coat of arms be limited to the art of the 12th century. You will find that when there are new fashions in art, heraldry mimics such fashions; during Baroque art there were Baroque shields, during Rococo art there was Rococo shields, during the period when French culture was popular you find French-styled shields and today there is even a manga-styled heraldic artist. No matter what the style or shield shape or embellishments, you will always notice the same basic symbols and colours are used, and that is what makes the coat of arms a coat fo arms.

If you go through examples of, say, the English monarch, you will see the shield-shapes and the artistic styles and so on differ greatly between each rendition, but that the colours and symbols all remain the same. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree with what You mentioned about changes in the style of the coa during the times and I do not question our knowledge about the subject. Im more into adopting German style where the heraldry is more exact trying to establish the original version without adding so much more. Of course, I know the families during the time got additions and so on so there are always changes.

However, this can also be somehow dangerous and here I can tell about the Ostoja coa that so far no one painted right (quite amazing)! Original Ostoja had a cross with long ending that later on in 17th century was transformed into a sword! Researching the original version was very simple, all medieval sources told the same. Then few years ago polish professor Szymanski made fantastic book of all those medieval polish CoA without any changes. Great work and beautiful edition and still...the Ostoja was not correct. Why? Because the helmet should turn 25% looking on the same side as the dragon. If the dragon would look forward, then the helmet would be correct looking forward but not in this case. Simple heraldic rules that should be folowed!

I also studied this matter for Adman Heymowski in Stockholm since 1986, well...polish heraldry is real nightmare and you get mental break down after few years researching :) Anyway, I will check the discussion and see whats up, not sure I can contribute with so much but I do understand your point of view!

Best regards, Camdan (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms often change over time, it is not uncommon at all. For example, the three lions that the English Kings used were originally one, then two fighting each other, then two stacked up one over the other then three stacked up. In your case the cross fitchee, which uses the long point beneath it, is often mistaken in poor drawings for a sword, but then again a cross fitchee is supposed to mimic a sword and was often used by holy fighters. But, that is how heraldry changes overtime. The de' Medici did the same, modifying the number of circles on their shield to suit their aesthetic eye.

As for the discussion over at the WikiProject, it is a question on the shapes of shields and how much they matter. The editor who questioned the shield shapes thought the shape mattered more than the charges on the shield. Also, I like to make complete arms, so that means adding any appropriate crowns or crests or supporters, so that readers to Wikipedia can have a full sense of what heraldry is. Also, if you would care to repeat your compliments to my work there as well, I would appreciate the support.

Do you need a new drawing for the Ostoja coat of arms for any Wikipedia article? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is actually a difficult painting to do but I need firt to scan the best painting and tell the errors in it...Im on vacation now so I might not be able to send it to you but I appreciate You asking...yes the Ostoja coa need to painted exactyl as it was in the medieval times...I will come back to you with this issue and see if you could help. Very grateful for this help! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdan (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing discussion

Hi Xander. In principle, you are allowed to remove content from your own talk page. However, deleting discussions while a dispute is ongoing, as you did here, is not very helpful and is considered bad form. Can you restore the discussions, or else archive them, please? Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am allowed to modify my user and talk page as I see fit, thank you for reiterating that. As for your concern about an archive, see that painting by Van Gough in the upper right corner that says Archives in bold text? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you would re-post this yourself after I had deleted it with an apology. Still, so much of what you do baffles me. But now that you have seen fit to restore that post, can I re-iterate that even archiving content while a dispute is ongoing is not good form, especially when you leave more flattering, closed discussions from several months ago. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Because you said it is bad form to delete discussions. I am only trying to live up to your standards, or do you find the bar you set too high for yourself to live by?

I reposted it because it shows you are trying to create issues rather than resolve them, because it is up to me to edit my talk page as I see fit and whatever your opinion is of my talk page is irrelevant. You jsut want to start another argument, you like to argue apparently. I do not need to archive any discussion. But I do. And you came here to lecture me without even looking. I mean, it is at the top of the page in bold text. You couldn't have missed it if you were looking.

And the O'Neill pages are not an on-going discussion, they haven't been for a bit. They were rather long, so they went into the archive. You and your friends jumped that issue and are on to another problem you guys invented. Trying to save the planet from some New World Order that you think is attempting to gain control through Wikipedia images. Bon chance with that. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pope Leo XIII

Hi. :) As the mentor of User:Malke 2010, I have been watching but not participating in this conversation, although I did note the opened RfC in order to avoid additional concerns with Canvassing. I have undone your change here as I'm afraid that it reflects a misunderstanding of the situation and of User:Canterbury Tail's authority here. As an administrator, I'm very familiar with our authority and scope, and his opinion (clearly labeled as such) does not constitute "arbitration". You have opened an WP:RfC on this matter; it is not an emergency, and you should allow it sufficient time to draw any interested contributors to help a clear consensus emerge. Wikipedia:Administrators may better explain what we do and where we do carry additional authority; Wikipedia:Arbitration can also help clarify how that terms is used on Wikipedia. It has a specific meaning here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I will let the RfC play out then. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's hope that it brings enough participation to make a clear consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the RfC should be over on Leo's page?Malke2010 18:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that would probably be best, since it's a targeted subject. It's unusual to move an RfC, but not impossible, since it hasn't drawn any participants outside of the existing debate so far. You'd need to make sure that anyone who has contributed is okay with moving it to the more specific page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But if nobody has commented on the RfC, then it would be okay to move it?Malke2010 19:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Like this? Do I just delete it elsewhere with a note that the RfC is now on Leo's page? Do I leave the others open? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can only have one at a time, or you have issues with CANVASSing. Fortunately, since you didn't put the RfC tag at the talk page, you don't have two currently. You have two options: if User:Scolaire agrees to the question Malke has already asked him, you can move the existing RfC to the proper talk page (removing what you've since placed) and just strikethrough whatever text in your post isn't appropriate in its new location. You'd have to move Scolaire's note, too. Alternatively, as the opener, you can close the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Images. I would then wait a day or so before putting the tag on the new section at Talk:Pope Leo XIII#Request for comment. And I would alter the language of that a little bit, if I were you. We don't vote in RfCs, but discuss.

Based on your action at the article earlier, I do want to caution you in one respect: once this RfC gets going (hoping it does), you should not read consensus prematurely. Say you have five editors come and they all choose one image. It may be tempting to put it in place. You should wait for a few days after discussion settles before deciding that consensus has been reached. And if the debate remains contentious, you should consider seeking a neutral party to close it. Frequently, admins are willing to close RfCs once they go stale. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just going to ask if he could just close the thing on the Images talk page and reopen, but with different wording, sort of. Malke2010 02:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

FitzGerald CoA

Hi Xander, the Fitzgeralds of Kildare now have an article about a house they once owned Croom Castle so we need a CoA for the page, if you've got the time.[11].Malke2010 04:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be able to once I finish up a drawing I am already working on. That is rather an amusing source image you found, haha. Hopefully I will have it sometime this next week for you. :-) [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I finished the FitzGeralds, Earls of Desmond arms.

File:Coat of arms of the FitzGeralds, Earls of Desmond by Alexander Liptak.png

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done. Maybe you could add a description of the crest into the "Notes" section of the template. You've got the blazon of the shield, but not the crest.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

O'Donovan

Hi Xander. I thought I'd come to beg for a coat of arms for my cousins, because I think your work is pretty sweet, and the little gif I did I hate and have removed. I've now redone a lot of the article and written what I think is a pretty sweet short history of Clancahill. We murdered hundreds of our own cousins and dispossessed still more, all for the top position. True story, more or less. But the MacCarthys had their own thing like that a few generations before, and it was absolutely huge. Took up half the province. And they had another one or two before that. Anyway. O'Donovan and the others are considered effective peers by Debrett's and now by Burke's, but he has supporters in any case and is the descendant of a regional king. I found one in an old Burke's Landed Gentry of Ireland but it makes a worthless image file. It's on page 341 and his arms are described on 342. Thought you might enjoy the challenge! DinDraithou (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back! I was worried you were gone for good. I've only ever seen them complete with supporters in Burke's 1899. Because the Irish were becoming increasingly unpopular, in later editions O'Donovan loses his supporters (as if they were ever that inconsistent publication's to allow in the first place). I have found an earlier edition from 1863 which I added here under User:DinDraithou/O'Donovan arms, and they actually get it more or less right for once and allow them only for the chief, he being the actual noble. There is this website,[12] which gets it right about the supporters and feudal chapeau and most everything else, but then at the top they have the O'Hea arms. They were a respectable family of the gentry in the Carbery region but were not rod holders (nobles) like the O'Donovans, and it is a mystery how the two families ended up with virtually i

Design a Coat of Arms

Hi, V&A here again. Thank you for your explanation as to why you felt you had to remove the Design a Coat of Arms link again. The V&A designed the Coat of Arms site as an activity to learn how a coat of arms builds up, it is not possible to cover all heraldic possibilities and this was never the intention. It has been discussed with the College of Heralds who have accepted it as a simple introduction and have no complaints about inaccuracy. I was wondering if you knew of another website that provided a starting point to learn about heraldry? If there is one perhaps it should be added to the list of external links on this page. VAwebteam (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not simply link to curiosities or to sites that are not comprehensive. Yes, it is a nice beginners overview, and offers accurate albeit simple arms. However, that in itself excludes the more complex situations of heraldry and is therefore incomplete and not worth to note, then, in an encyclopedia. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Archbishop Fitzgerald

Hey Alex, can you put up the coat of arms of Michael Fitzgerald? Thanks.

And also, this Bishop ( I think you've already done this one's CoA) Michael J. Fitzgerald (bishop). Thanks.

That image of the Bishop's arms was from the archdiocese website, but given it's small size and if only used on the bishop's article, it would fall under fair use. I will read up on fair use rationales and add the image soon. :-) [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation Tags

It cannot possibly the the intent of Wikipedia to require citations after every single statement in an article. Such format would be cumbersome in the extreme, and would deviate from all conventions of scholarly writing. By your assertion, all of the following pages would need to be removed due to lack of citations:

• Aaron Copland
• Milton Babbitt
• George Washington
• Napoleon I
• Pierre-Auguste Renoir
• Andy Warhol

There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of others that are similar in that an editor has not indicated 'citation needed' for basic information, such as birth date, names of parents, academic degrees, etc.

It is also reasonable to point out that inserting 'citation needed' after the name of a living person's parents is more than a little insulting. Are you suggesting that a birth certificate needs to be scanned and posted? Ridiculous.

I do wonder why Mr. Jamieson's entry has been graced with your special attentions. Indeed, there are obviously plenty of other biographies that you could litter with 'citation needed' tags. There must be something in particular that has made this article the focus of your obsession.

Please do not lecture me or anybody else on appropriate use of citation in scholarly writing. I have been teaching at the university level full-time for some 16 years, assigning 20-page research papers using Chicago Manual of Style to my students. I know excessive citation when I see it. If you would like to be truly helpful, perhaps you could add a source or citation yourself rather than simply clutter up the article with tags after every sentence.

Seaghdha (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Andrew Steward Jamieson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: regardless of the warning above, your previous blocks demonstrate that you are (or certainly should be) well aware of the three-revert rule. You have broken it here so have been blocked. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xanderliptak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for edits to Andrew Stewart Jamieson. The article has been recently flooded by editors, both registered and unregistered, because Andrew Jamieson himself sent emails to his fans to edit his profile in a biased manner. I have asked the editors to talk and discuss, yet these went ignored. I have been berated and attacked on Wikipedia and on Facebook. I have been trying to maintain a neutral article in accordance to policy. After I was warned about reaching the 3RR I stopped editing the article, and had no plans on continuing to edit disruptively. The block was unnecessary, as it came immediately after the warning, giving me no time to show good faith. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No warning was necessary; your block log indicates that you are already familiar with the rules against edit-warring. This doesn't appear to be an emergency, so just try one or more of the solutions at WP:DISPUTE when your block expires tomorrow. Blocks normally escalate in length; I would have expected this block to be a full week, rather than the short day that it is. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xanderliptak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am familiar enough with the 3RR rule to know that the "following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule... Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism... Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons". Given that the admin that warned me about the 3RR in turn deleted the same material I was deleting from the page, it would seem to be that the warning admin was in agreement that data I was deleting was bias, unsourced and likely vandalism, which does not count towards the 3RR per Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule.

Decline reason:

Looking at this report and the reverts themselves, none of these appear to be reverting obvious vandalism or removing BLP violations. Yworo is not an admin.Chaser (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Four boxes of democracy

You contributed to the discussion on whether this article should be deleted. Since then it has been greatly expanded, with much new content and sources. You may care to take another look. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt

A question has been raised about the Roosevelt coat of arms in this article. Can you please respond to this query? Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You are edit-warring again, and have broken the three-revert rule again, despite at least three previous occasions when you were told not to do so. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tyler Clementi.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tyler Clementi.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Theodore Roosevelt. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are now at 5 reverts in 26 hours. Do it again and I will seek to have you blocked (again) for editwarring. →ROUX ₪ 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I warned you before to stop lying about me and what I know. This is your final warning to cease and desist, immediately, from stating that I know 'little or nothing' about heraldry. The next time you make such a statement I will have you blocked. →ROUX ₪ 21:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

See WP:AN/I#User:Xanderliptak. → ROUX ₪ 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

SCA

My SCA arms: Vert, two bendlets wavy between two suns Or. I dropped out long ago. —Tamfang (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked 24 hrs for personal attacks

Both Xanderliptak and Roux are blocked 24 hrs for making personal attacks on the Heraldry discussion and on ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hrs for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Edit war warning

Please avoid an edit war on Mary (mother of Jesus). You are unilaterally replacing links while discussions are in progress. I reverted you once but do not want to revert again. Please replace your redirects yourself, and discuss them on the talkpage. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You claimed I am edit waring without there being any edit war. You owe me an apology. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ on that point. You replaced the same link twice, after I objected to the first replacement without a talk page discussion. History2007 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted a link to a fork article. You reinstated it. I did not delete it again. No edit war. So you owe me an apology. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Again I beg to differ on that point. The question of "it was a fork" or not needed to be discussed on the talk page and had been the subject of a merge proposal. You replaced the same link once in the body article, then again at the top after I had objected to the first case. That should have been discussed. An apology is for free, but I see no need for it in this case. History2007 (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mary (mother of Jesus). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I only count one revert by myself. History2007 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one that claimed there was an edit war. I am only going off your recommendation. I have no reverts. So if anyone is edit warring, it has to be you. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As you are well aware, from our past interactions, our sense of logic has yet to coincide. Let us leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly our logic splits at what is logical. You tell me there is an edit war between us, but when I throw your words back at you, you act surprised to learn there is an edit war. Interesting. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)