User talk:Nas gord

File permission problem with File:Warren House, Kingston-upon-Thames.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Warren House, Kingston-upon-Thames.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply:

I have sent an E-Mail from the owner giving permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

E-Mail dated 9/6/2015 from Joan Middleton <joan@warrenhouse.com>

Dear Graham

Carolyn Henderson asked me to forward some images of Warren House. I have attached 2 colour pictures of the house. These pictures are owned by Warren House and they are free to be distributed and used online. Please do let me know if you need any further images or information .

With kind regards,

Joan

Joan Middleton Marketing Executive – Warren House Tales

Nas gord (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Vera Bate Lombardi

Hello, and welcome to Wikipaedia.
I notice you have substantially re-written this page over the past few weeks; I have to ask, where is your information derived from? It seems to have very few additional sources and references from what it had in early May, when it was only a quarter the size. Also, much of the article now reads like an argument for a particular point of view. You should be aware (if you are not already) that all information here needs to be verifiable, and that WP is not a platform for publishing original research. Can you address these concerns? Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply:

Thank you for your message. I have tried merely to cite the evidence and state that this evidence appears to point in a particular direction (as published sources have already said), but I also point out that there are opposing views. It is for the reader to make their mind up about which view they prefer. I disagree that the article is for a particular point of view in this sense. I think I am right in saying that there are lots of articles on Wikipedia which do similar things; like the article on the identity of Jack the Ripper or the death of Mussolini for instance. If there are questions that arise from the facts, I think it is valid to state what these are, so that people can at least be aware that there are questions that still need to be addressed or potential ramificiations.

With reference to sources, the article as it stood failed to state that cited sources, Hal Vaughan and others, clearly accept that Lombardi was an illegitimate daughter of Prince Adolphus. Thus, the sources were referred to but what they say was misrepresented. As it stood, the article was therefore highly misleading; it had been reduced to the point where there was no mention even of the fact that Lombardi was reputed to have been the illegitimate daughter of Prince Adolphus. This cannot be right. In addition, I have actually added quite a number of new references to sources. However, if you feel that particular statements are not referenced sufficiently, please identify them to me and I will try to address the problem. In this context, I have seen endless Wikipedia articles that have said 'Citation needed' over long periods of time.

In short, the article as it stood was lacking in detail and highly misleading. I have tried to rectify that situation. Again, if you feel that there is original research which shouldn't be there, please tell me where. I am quite happy to deal with any issues you might have but, in all fairness, you need to be specific about what they are.

Do you have a particular expertise in this area? If so, I would welcome your views. Hopefully, with your help we can produce a really first class article.Nas gord (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Further note:

Here is a list of some additional sources I have used and cited in the article (they are in the text so you probably didn't notice them):

Selig, Zachary, 'Sarah Gertrude Arkwright Fitzgeorge Bate Lombardi Biography', 2011

Good, Victoria, 'The Warren House Tales', Third Millenium, 2014

St. Aubyn, Giles, 'The Royal George', Constable & Co., 1963

Aspinal, A (Ed), 'The Correspondence of George, Prince of Wales, 1770-1812: 1789-1794', Oxford University Press, 1971

'Records of the Hammersley Family', 1894 (in the possession of Sir Andrew Duff-Gordon)

Camp, Anthony, 'Royal Mistresses and Bastards: Fact and Fiction 1714-1936'

Samuel, Henry, 'Winston Churchill "ordered assassination of Mussolini to protect compromising letters"', Daily Telegraph, 2 September 2010

Chadwick, Owen, 'Britain and the Vatican During the Second World War', Cambridge Paperback Library, 1988

Bompard, Paul, 'Did Churchill kill Il Duce?', Times Higher Education, 16 October 1995

Nas gord (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Further reply:

Forgot to mention this source which I cited:

Van Vorst, Marie, 'War Letters of an American Woman', New York, 1916

Nas gord (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Two more sources that I referred to:

Luciano Garibaldi's 'Mussolini - The Secrets of His Death', Enigma Books, 2004

Frank Joseph's 'Mussolini's War', Helion, 2010

12 additional sources in all.

Nas gord (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps I have been less than clear: it isn't a matter of odd bits and pieces that I think need changing; the whole article as you have left it appears to breach (in fact, drive a coach-and-horses through) WP guidelines; it lacks Verifiability, is full of original research, lacks a neutral point of view and is something WP is not; it reads like a personal essay and is full of random and irrelevant material.

WP is an encyclopaedia; a collection of brief (or brief-ish) outlines on a wide variety of subjects. What you have added is more suited to specialist journal, or a submission to an academic course, or a chapter in a yet-to-be-published book. And the difference between those (which are peer reviewed, or subject to a tutor, or to have to pass an editorial board) and an online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, isn't that you can add anything you like but that all content must be derived from a source which has already passed that threshold; hence the requirement for verifiability, and the ban on original research. You have whole sections without a single reference, sections of pure speculation (RB's motives, what happened in 1885) sections with lurid titles (Adolphus and Rosa:Did they, were they, Where). You also devote half the article to the question of Lombardi's birth and supposed royal connection: That's fine in an essay on that subject, but in an encyclopaedia article on the woman it's just padding. All that is needed is an outline of the issue, with the main points for and against, as stated by reliable sources and citations for those sources. A paragraph at the most.

And to say you are "merely citing the evidence" and that "it is for the reader to make up their mind" is disingenuous; your summation (which was 'til recently entitled "Lombardi's firm status as an illegitimate daughter of Prince Adolphus" ) has a quote from Madsen with one view, and an opposing view from Camp (which is fair enough, in cases of controversy we are, for neutrality, supposed to present both sides). But what you have then done is claim the Madsen quote as "evidence...that appears to be persuasive" and state that Camp's view is “a red herring”. You then argue for the fist point of view, ending with the claim that “witness statements in divorce cases should...be treated with caution". Really? So anyone you are saying those who said otherwise were perjurers?

The article is also now full of irrelevance to the subject. Take the first section as an example, the woman's early life. Before you changed it, it had four sentences outlining her early life, backed by two sources. You've deleted one of them, with the sentence about her possible connection to royalty, and added a lengthy digression that her mother was a distant descendant of an Andrew Thompson, who was the father of someone else who's mother was an empress of Russia and had an art collection. Which you say is “interesting”. Well, why? And who says it's interesting? A published source ( in which case you need to say what they see significance as, and what they find its relevance is to the subject ie Vera Lombardi) or you?

I don't know if you are new to WP or have edited here before under a different username; if the former it would be a good idea to take time to read through the main principles to see what is and what isn't suitable here. You might also want to back up a copy of what you have written in case you decide to submit it as an article to somewhere more suitable (seriously; you've put a lot of work into it and I'm guessing there are journals that focus on this sort of subject: On that note you should be aware that WP on principle offers you no copyright protection; once you put something here anyone could lift it and publish it for themselves without any come-back)

As for what I know, I know very little (and probably care less) about whether Vera Lombardi's father was royalty or not: What I do know is a bit about the way WP works. So that is what I have told you. I only had the article on my watchlist because it had had some problems with inappropriate content in the past.

So in order to get an opinion from someone who will know I have requested comment from the Biography project, which will be on the article talk page. I will link it to this conversation, but you might want to make a representation there (maybe from your previous reply to me). Swanny18 (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not sure the example of irrelevant material that you give (the fact that she was descended from Andrew Thomson) is a good one. If you look at the article on Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, you will find similar information about her:

'Her maternal great-grandmother, Alice Keppel, was a mistress of King Edward VII from 1898 to 1910...'

Presumably you think this should be removed as irrelevant. Most people, of course, find this sort of connection quite interesting.

But perhaps I am missing something. Nas gord (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me expand. Could you please explain why this sort of information is relevant in the case of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, but irrelevant in the case of Lombardi?Nas gord (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll reply at length to your points on the article talk page, but to conclude here, the short answer might be that while many of the people reading WP articles will have heard of Edward VII, comparatively few will know who Andrew Thomson was. And yes, if you ask me, it sounds akin to gossip, so I probably wouldn't have it there.

But the longer answer is that information here is by its own merits, not in relation to something else. Or, just because some stuff exists on WP somewhere isn't a carte blanche to add your own stuff somewhere else. All content has to meet the threshold set by the guidelines; if other stuff doesn't meet that threshold that's grounds to take it out, not grounds to put similar stuff in. Swanny18 (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not comparing like with like. You are comparing the less well-known of one pair with the better-known of the other pair. This is logically inconsistent. You say that people have heard of Edward VII. My response is that thy have also heard of the Empress of Russia. In absolute terms most people find it interesting that a person is the product of an affair with a royal person - or descended from such a person. No-one would claim that the fact that Angerstein was an illegitimate child of the Empress of Russia is significant in the sense that it made him a better, more intelligent or whatever person. So why is it there? Because it is an interesting fact. But let's go through the article. Start with the first section (the summary). What do you think is wrong with it? When we have dealt with that section, we can go onto the next one.Nas gord (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vera Bate Lombardi‎. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Nearly 40k of content removed without an edit summary. Whatever you are doing, stop it immediately Mirokado (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've now had time to look at the article history and it seems that your latest edit was basically a self-reversion, so I have restored it (i.e. restored your reversion!). Please use an edit summary if you remove lots of content. In this case, talk page contributions seem to justify the restoration of an earlier version. I will have a quick further look at the article, at least the infobox should remain, I think. --Mirokado (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I will leave the article as it is. Of course, now it is highly misleading because it conceals the fact that authors of several major biographies of Coco Chanel have accepted in no uncertain terms that Lombardi was an illegitimate daughter of Prince Adolphus. But this is not unusual in Wikipedia. EVERY Wikipedia article that I have looked into in depth contains major errors or omissions (a worrying sign). Perhaps this is something to do with the fact that the 'editors' who control content (people like you) know absolutely nothing of the subject matter. I have put my article on academia.edu where I am one of the top 4% of most-read authors.Nas gord (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Part of 1891 census entry for West Tytherley, Hampshire.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Part of 1891 census entry for West Tytherley, Hampshire.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:The latest style 1886.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The latest style 1886.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Warren House, Kingston-upon-Thames.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Warren House, Kingston-upon-Thames.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nas gord. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Richmond Park Outline Map.jpg

The file File:Richmond Park Outline Map.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)