Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roux (talk | contribs) at 21:48, 4 October 2010 (Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Theodore Roosevelt. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request

Hello. I've got a request. There's absolutely no pressure though. I just put Leod up for a WP:DYK so hopefully it'll get on the mainpage for a bit. Part of it concerns heraldry. I think a comparison of the current arms and the older arms is relevant to the article. The two images used now don't look all that good together though. I think you could improve on the arms and make two consistent shields, like you did for at O'Neill dynasty#Coats of Arms. The blazon for the current arms can be seen at John MacLeod of MacLeod; the one for the Armorial de Berry shield is Azure, a castle triple-towered Argent (it's titled "Le sire de bes" in the roll, even though today it is considered to represent a MacLeod) . No pressure though.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you happen to know if the crest for the older arms is the same for the crest of the newer arms? I am sure I could find it somewhere if you are uncertain, though. But thought I shoudl ask if you knew offhand. XANDERLIPTAK 08:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That particular one on the roll doesn't have a crest. The roll just recorded the shields. The Leod article is just concerned with the shields anyways, so i think just the shields of the two needed. But elsewhere, like on the individual chief articles, could use the crest, supporters and all that.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Escutcheon of the MacLeods of Harris and Dunvegan by Alexander Liptak.png File:Heraldic achievement of Hugh Magnus MacLeod of MacLeod by Alexander Liptak.png File:Escutcheon of Hugh Magnus MacLeod of MacLeod by Alexander Liptak.png

Let me know if you find these acceptable. XANDERLIPTAK 16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Especially the full achievement. Yours are much more bold and eye catching than the digital ones. Thanks for helping with the Leod page, the arms make it alot more interesting. Happy holidays :).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

New request

I'm working on the O'Neill pages and we are desperate for some CoA help. There are a variety of arms used by the various families that have some slight differences and quarterings, but we are unable to post them as there is no real computer rendition of many of the arms. Do you make these great pics? Cheers, Princeton 03 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.111.44 (talk) 13:27, 19 July 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. 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. XANDERLIPTAK 14:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The arms as you requested.

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

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)

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. XANDERLIPTAK 20:33, 20 June 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article? 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)

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..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. :-) 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

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, 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 identical arms. See for how old it is. The two families were briefly associated far earlier, the Normans viewing them as "partners in crime" for some reason, in the late 13th and early 14th centuries.

But back to the matter of O'Donovan's supporters, it looks like Burke himself was irritated by his use of them, not understanding (as many people still don't) that lords who received the White Wand were Gaelic nobility as titled as counts or earls... or kings. The O'Neill got one and so did the King of Desmond. So O'Donovan, a count, called a comital chief, has them if he wants and Burke's can eat shit. I have recently been corresponding with the representative of the also armigerous Clan Loughlin and Ballymore, Brian Donovan, who also happens to be a scholar at Trinity College, and will ask him. They don't use supporters themselves but should know about O'Donovan's. Thank you for responding! DinDraithou (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed Brian but he is currently very busy with work and does not have the time. And it may not matter. Looking again at that B&W image in Burke's 1899 I'm going to go with the lion mostly gold/or and the griffin mostly black/sable. DinDraithou (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I went with the 1863 version from Burke's, which is likely the way the arms originally appeared before alterations later in time. It uses a lot of proper colours for things, which are later lost and replaced with colours that better match. The blue sleeve is replaced with red and then white, likely because blue appears nowhere else in the arms. The brown eagle becomes white and black, likely to better match the white and black of the ermine cap upon which it rests. It seems the arms underwent some refinement over the years, to be more aesthetically appealing.

File:Alexander Liptak—Coat of arms of the O'Donovans of Clancahill.png

XANDERLIPTAK 10:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is so beautiful! Thank you so, so much! Wow! Yes, everything you say must be right. I didn't know enough to realize about the alterations. I was just proud of myself for being able to say or and sable. Actually I was very unsure about what to guess for the griffin and am immensely glad you made the educated decision for me. Wonderful piece. DinDraithou (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Xander, wait! Thank you and that is very well meaning, but the situation is much more complicated than that. First of all, the O'Donovans were British subjects for a long time and asserting themselves with supporters they felt necessary. Certainly they had and still have a right to, considering their lineage but also that they remained landed. But at the same time it was not a regular practice and not all chiefs chose to do so and thus lack the tradition. Finally, there is the major problem of all the fake chiefs still out there and they should absolutely not be encouraged. Trust me, I would love to but we really can't have that image there, no matter how incredible it looks! DinDraithou (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the Scottish variant, Chief of the Name and Arms or of that Ilk, are allowed supporters for their position, so I thought the Irish version would be the same. I remember the English appointed heralds over Ireland said there were no records or proof the family had the right to supporters, but since they pre-date English lordship, the heralds really were out of their league on the matter. It is an odd argument the heralds took, that a sovereign lord in Ireland did not seek permission from a foreign king for written rights to supporters. But, that is how much of British heraldry goes. XANDERLIPTAK 02:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You have it absolutely right. Although underneath the MacCarthy Reagh, in the Gaelic world O'Donovan was a sovereign lord, however small his domain, right up until surrender and regrant, and even after that until the Cromwellian conquest. What's more is that after the Glorious Revolution there has been no sovereign in Britain, only the center of a staggeringly pretentious social scene. Titles and arms concocted after that have been for the most part nonsense. Nothing will ever beat the unimaginably ridiculous title Emperor of India. I don't fault those poor Germans on the "throne" at all. It's just the way England ended up thinking of itself. DinDraithou (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just my personal opinion, but I think that emblem box, however impressive, actually takes the eyes off the image! Also I think that any larger than around 200px and people will be less likely to click on it to see the exquisite detail. At 250px you can see enough to study it. DinDraithou (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I may eventually create articles for Daniel V O'Donovan and Richard I O'Donovan, respectively father and grandfather of Richard II O'Donovan. Richard I was the first to become a Protestant (1715), and so the first one to really try to fit in with the English. So from him on I am comfortable with the supporters. Make any sense? Donal IV O'Donovan was respected by the English, and he respected them but probably did not care enough beyond that, still hoping for the return of the rest of his patrimony. But his son knew he would have to be content with the tiny estate of 3000 acres called Bawnlahan the family got to keep. DinDraithou (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it better to add the blazon to the article so people can readily have it. When the image was set at 250px wide, the infobox ended up being just as long as when it was set at 200px, so I figured the larger image would be preferred with the blazon right there so that people could read and look at the image at the same time. It might seem a bit pretentious that I go about and add my images anywhere I can, but I only add them where there are no images and as long as there is a reason to remove them, I don't mind. They take a while to create, so I prefer them to be seen and then removed, rather then just sit and be happened upon by the random editor. XANDERLIPTAK 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find other places to add it. People really need to see fine work so they will be challenged to contribute their own best or what they can find. I have added it across from O'Donovan at Irish nobility, where you can find more of your work. And if you really want a lot of articles then do some arms for the Butler dynasty! See User_talk:Laurel_Lodged#Butler_arms. There are the Earl of Ormond (Ireland), the Earl of Carrick (Ireland), the Viscount Mountgarret, and Baron Dunboyne among others. But the Earls of Ormond at least are in the most need. We're actually distantly related to them through the MacCarthys and FitzGeralds. And the O'Conor Don deserves far better than the image he has right now! Interestingly their supporters were actually gifted to them by the British Royal Family about a century ago in recognition of their ancient royalty, which was genuinely nice because the family were of limited means for a period. Finally the O'Brien dynasty are in need too, surprisingly. They've made a limited effort so far at Misplaced Pages. Conor Myles John O'Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin is currently The O'Brien, Prince of Thomond. DinDraithou (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the O'Conor Don's arms again I see the quality of the image was deliberately reduced, so never mind in that case. And strangely they aren't as poor looking as I remember them. DinDraithou (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I will add O'Connor Don to my list of emblazonments. I wont add the mantle and strange crown atop it, which is not to the period of their reign so likely a romantic addition added years later. I will add the supporting lions, which are listed in Burke's work. I will also try to find a source for Butler. XANDERLIPTAK 02:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For what the last true High King of Ireland's crown looked like see Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair. Knowing the Irish it must have been incredibly ornate. You might take inspiration from the Cross of Cong commissioned by his father. Also the Ardagh Chalice and Derrynaflan Chalice and hoard items offer bands to be studied. But just make sure never to spell O'Conor with -nn- again because the family have a reputation for filing lawsuits about that. Nobody else much cares but they have this thing about it. There was like some famous lawsuit in the 19th century because somebody spelled it wrong or something and they got all bent out of shape, I kid you not. Since they're still royals people just let them be weird about it. DinDraithou (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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, Misplaced Pages 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. 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. :-) XANDERLIPTAK 02:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation Tags

It cannot possibly the the intent of Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Template:Z9--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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages: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)