User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 56
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ealdgyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Grey family
@Ealdgyth: hi there - I saw you reverted my edits regarding Walter (howsoever Wiki may have initially determined to spell his surname) but let's say de Grey. Does this mean to say that things like http://www.britannia.com/bios/abofy/wgrey.html are wrong & you are right? I'm not following the logic as to how Wiki determines such things when I've just spent some considerable time updating the Barons Grey of Codnor and this Walter is categorised under Category:Grey family. Please advise. L'honorable (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
PS. I intend(ed) to set up a Wikipedia page about the House of Grey, but unless such elementary misnomenclatures can be ironed out, how to go about this without involving much "debate"?
- We go by what the reliable sources say the name is. And while Britannia may say Grey, the Handbook of British Chronology, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and Wyatt's work on Gray ... all use "Gray". Britannia isn't a reliable scholarly source - it's a travel source for heavens sake! The Fasti does use "Grey" but the overwhelming number of sources use "Gray". In the medieval period, there wasn't consistency - look at Thomas Becket - but Becket's father's name is usually given as "Beket"... expecting everything to be consistent is expecting too much. It's not a misnomenclature - it's just the way the sources use the name. Consistent spelling of surnames doesn't actually occur in history until the late 19th century or early 20th ... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth: this is making Wiki seem to me to be run by factions, thereby lacking consistency, qv:
- Collins' Peerage (18c) - is this yet another "unreliable" source in your book? L'honorable (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
PS. if what you reckon is to be so, then he should be deleted from Category:Grey family...- PPS. I conclude that it is difficult to make Wiki correct (given such opposition).... — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'honorable (talk • contribs) 22:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- PPPS. I have just deleted those non-members of the patrilineal Grey family by way of example. I appreciate you want to keep things "pure" so it just depends on how you view a thing. In my book Archbishop Grey was a member of the Grey family.... Would you agree? L'honorable (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're confusing the spelling of a name with being a member of the family - people can spell their names differently without giving up membership in a family. For example - my mother's maiden name is Reid. However, her grandfather usually spelled it Reed. His father most often used Read. They are all the same family. In the middle ages spelling isn't consistent with ANYTHING much less surnames (and at this time we're not really speaking of true surnames anyway they don't become standardized into their current form for a while yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- What your family did (or does: recipe for equivocation?) is none of my business, but if you think that is fine so be it. I was simply endeavouring to make Wiki a useful encyclopaedic resource. Let me know when it is safe to continue. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- L'honorable I do not understand why you find the spelling "Gray" such a problem. He was a nephew of John de Gray, who was according to his DNB article at [1] probably a descendant of Ansketel de Grai, (spelled Anchetil de Greye in his Wikipedia article), the ancestor of the Codnor Greys. Walter was thus probably but not certainly related to the Codnor Greys. Wikipedia spells Walter's name "Gray" because, as Ealdgyth has pointed out, that is the spelling in modern academic sources, which are our authorities. The variation in spelling does not mean that he was not related to the Codnor Greys, any more than the variant spelling de Greye or Grai means Anchetil de Greye cannot have been an ancestor. Minor variations in spelling are a separate issue from whether people are related. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- All true, but in cases like this we should probably note the existence of variable spellings more frequently, in notes or whatever. Not everyone is aware of this. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- That occurred to me, but I did not mention it because the variant spellings are in an article which cites as its source a guide to cathedrals published in 1903, and a book on the peerage published in 1756. I do not think either of these are RS sources for a variant spelling. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi all - I'm happy to be guided here (of course) but it seems to me that whoever creates a Wiki article, however bad their spelling/historical knowledge etc, sets a precedent and people like us then spend inordinate amounts of time trying to correct things (with incredible ensuing debate). The academic sources cited above are completely arbitrarily chosen because I could cite umpteen supporting the de Grey spelling, but is this really worth spending hours and hours debating? L'honorable (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
PS. most people for what it is worth recognise Lady Jane Grey not Lady Jane Gray - in my parlance Gray is much more of Scottish derivation & Wiki's continuation of the spelling Gray in reference to the English Grey family could well precipitate confusion among the incognoscenti. As mentioned I had thought it would be a good idea to have an article on the House of Grey but not until this political minefield is cleared up. Best..- PLease don't edit war by changing all the "Gray" to "Grey" in teh article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, def not & I concur 100 per cent but just made those edits to Archbishop Grey by way of example. Should the powers that be determine that de Gray should remain as is then so be it, but my humble petition is that members of the Anglo-Norman Grey family should where reasonably possible be called Grey.. Much appreciate your attention to this matter & thanks again Ealdgyth. L'honorable (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- You ARE edit warring, however. You made a bold edit, I reverted it. We are discussing (here, when it should be on the article talk, but whatever). However, you've gone and redone your edit ... when no one else discussing here agrees. That's the very definition of edit warring. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- PS. my apologies & thanks for pointing that out - understood - so no editing until this is sorted out - when will that be? Best L'honorable (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
PPS. I subscribe by Wiki's rules, but simply put without going into endless ramifications of this that & all the other how do such matters get resolved quickly?
Simple rule of thumb: Grey in England - Gray in Scotland. Wiki is international & by making ad hoc representations, based on random (& I don't mean uninformed) people creating new articles, how does Wiki keep a grip on such historical subjects (which can be quite esoteric) so as to standardise its encyclopaedic content? L'honorable (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)- We decide by going by what the reliable recent sources call someone. As pointed out above - the ODNB, the Handbook of British Chronology, and at least one scholar writing on his career use "Gray". Older sources do not count nearly as much as recent scholarly ones, because the scholars are the ones we base our articles on and the recent ones are the most current. Britannia is not a reliable source because it is a travel site, not a scholarly site. Collins' Peerage is from 1756 and thus outdated. (You wouldn't use it to cite a peerage article - you'd use The Complete Peerage, which is much more recent). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Quite & George Cokayne states clearly that the Anglo-Norman family is called Grey - I can list the whole lot if you so wish.... L'honorable (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
PS. can really go to town on this but - truly - it all boils down (as far as I can tell so far) as to who launches the article & whether they know what they are talking about. Then a pattern emerges which gets stuck upon & nobody wants to upset the apple cart (unless they are confident in their knowledge) so things just cruise along in a certain direction. I have noticed an immense amount of American-style language in some of these articles (against which people just tag "use British English"). Well, that is fine, but when one does use British English & make the article comprehensible one gets challenges from one or two people. So, how to make Wiki accurate (especially where it has been particularly substandard previously)? Please review my recent edits because I'd like to understand the protocol here. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)- What Cockayne calls the family does not really have any bearing on this though. As we've tried explaining - family name spellings are NOT set in stone in this period. They vary. In this case - the recent scholarly sources almost all call him "Gray" even though they may use "Grey" for other members of the family or when discussing the family as a whole. It's not a British or American English thing - it's a sources-that-discuss-the-subject thing. How the family name may be spelt doesn't negate the fact that the recent scholarly sources use "Gray" in preponderance. That's the Wikipolicy. That's the rules. Until you bring a preponderance of modern scholarly sources to the table that use "Grey" for this specific person (not for the family, not for relatives) then wiki uses Gray. Now, if you'd quit editwarring and let me get to things, I can probably get the alternate spelling in the article (sourced to the Fasti) but you keep edit warring and that's really a bad thing. It doesn't make other people want to collaborate with you because you're not collaborating in turn. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- But I'm not edit warring - I am trying to discuss on a Talk Page. Anyway I get the picture - not welcome. Ciao. L'honorable (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- What Cockayne calls the family does not really have any bearing on this though. As we've tried explaining - family name spellings are NOT set in stone in this period. They vary. In this case - the recent scholarly sources almost all call him "Gray" even though they may use "Grey" for other members of the family or when discussing the family as a whole. It's not a British or American English thing - it's a sources-that-discuss-the-subject thing. How the family name may be spelt doesn't negate the fact that the recent scholarly sources use "Gray" in preponderance. That's the Wikipolicy. That's the rules. Until you bring a preponderance of modern scholarly sources to the table that use "Grey" for this specific person (not for the family, not for relatives) then wiki uses Gray. Now, if you'd quit editwarring and let me get to things, I can probably get the alternate spelling in the article (sourced to the Fasti) but you keep edit warring and that's really a bad thing. It doesn't make other people want to collaborate with you because you're not collaborating in turn. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Quite & George Cokayne states clearly that the Anglo-Norman family is called Grey - I can list the whole lot if you so wish.... L'honorable (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- We decide by going by what the reliable recent sources call someone. As pointed out above - the ODNB, the Handbook of British Chronology, and at least one scholar writing on his career use "Gray". Older sources do not count nearly as much as recent scholarly ones, because the scholars are the ones we base our articles on and the recent ones are the most current. Britannia is not a reliable source because it is a travel site, not a scholarly site. Collins' Peerage is from 1756 and thus outdated. (You wouldn't use it to cite a peerage article - you'd use The Complete Peerage, which is much more recent). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- PS. my apologies & thanks for pointing that out - understood - so no editing until this is sorted out - when will that be? Best L'honorable (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- You ARE edit warring, however. You made a bold edit, I reverted it. We are discussing (here, when it should be on the article talk, but whatever). However, you've gone and redone your edit ... when no one else discussing here agrees. That's the very definition of edit warring. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, def not & I concur 100 per cent but just made those edits to Archbishop Grey by way of example. Should the powers that be determine that de Gray should remain as is then so be it, but my humble petition is that members of the Anglo-Norman Grey family should where reasonably possible be called Grey.. Much appreciate your attention to this matter & thanks again Ealdgyth. L'honorable (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- PLease don't edit war by changing all the "Gray" to "Grey" in teh article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi all - I'm happy to be guided here (of course) but it seems to me that whoever creates a Wiki article, however bad their spelling/historical knowledge etc, sets a precedent and people like us then spend inordinate amounts of time trying to correct things (with incredible ensuing debate). The academic sources cited above are completely arbitrarily chosen because I could cite umpteen supporting the de Grey spelling, but is this really worth spending hours and hours debating? L'honorable (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- That occurred to me, but I did not mention it because the variant spellings are in an article which cites as its source a guide to cathedrals published in 1903, and a book on the peerage published in 1756. I do not think either of these are RS sources for a variant spelling. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- All true, but in cases like this we should probably note the existence of variable spellings more frequently, in notes or whatever. Not everyone is aware of this. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- L'honorable I do not understand why you find the spelling "Gray" such a problem. He was a nephew of John de Gray, who was according to his DNB article at [1] probably a descendant of Ansketel de Grai, (spelled Anchetil de Greye in his Wikipedia article), the ancestor of the Codnor Greys. Walter was thus probably but not certainly related to the Codnor Greys. Wikipedia spells Walter's name "Gray" because, as Ealdgyth has pointed out, that is the spelling in modern academic sources, which are our authorities. The variation in spelling does not mean that he was not related to the Codnor Greys, any more than the variant spelling de Greye or Grai means Anchetil de Greye cannot have been an ancestor. Minor variations in spelling are a separate issue from whether people are related. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- What your family did (or does: recipe for equivocation?) is none of my business, but if you think that is fine so be it. I was simply endeavouring to make Wiki a useful encyclopaedic resource. Let me know when it is safe to continue. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- You're confusing the spelling of a name with being a member of the family - people can spell their names differently without giving up membership in a family. For example - my mother's maiden name is Reid. However, her grandfather usually spelled it Reed. His father most often used Read. They are all the same family. In the middle ages spelling isn't consistent with ANYTHING much less surnames (and at this time we're not really speaking of true surnames anyway they don't become standardized into their current form for a while yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- PPPS. I have just deleted those non-members of the patrilineal Grey family by way of example. I appreciate you want to keep things "pure" so it just depends on how you view a thing. In my book Archbishop Grey was a member of the Grey family.... Would you agree? L'honorable (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- PPS. I conclude that it is difficult to make Wiki correct (given such opposition).... — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'honorable (talk • contribs) 22:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Walter de Grey
@Ealdgyth: would you prefer me to go away & let things stay as they are? When it says he wasn't consecrated that is a misnoma - he wasn't installed / enthroned in the cathedral - he did become a bishop however (which to all intents and purposes means he was consecrated - unless of course you say he didn't become a bishop in which case why is it mentioned?). We both seem to know something about this subject but unless I am thoroughly mistaken my contributions are not being thoroughly welcomed! Please advise how best to move forward (& as mentioned I had intended to create an article about the House of Grey, but not if it is going to be this argumentative). Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Read the article and it's sources. He was consecrated after his election at Worcester. He had previously been "bishop-elect" but was not consecrated (probably because of the interdict on England). INstallation refers to the formal seating/entry of a bishop into their cathedral and if you say a bishop wasn't installed it implies he WAS consecrated. This isn't the case in this instance. He was appointed to Lichfield by King John, becoming bishop-elect. He never got consecrated there, but then was elected by the Worcester cathedral chapter in 1214 as bishop there. Worcester was considered a "better" see so he took that office instead of Lichfield, once it became possible to be consecrated after the interdict ended. I really don't care what you do with any family article on Grey - I worry about the pre-1500 English bishops and making sure they are accurate and sourced. That's enough worry for any human being. However, inserting inaccuracies or unsourced information will make things difficult for your editing career. Also continuing to edit war. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- I stand corrected - thank you - hopefully the same might apply when it comes to Grey family history. Anyway I agree let's quit arguing, although this all started by my simply attempting to correct the spelling of de Grey which is there for all to see on York Minster's website, Burke's Peerage, Collins' Peerage, Debrett's Peerage, The Complete Peerage, and umpteen other sites - you name it... Can't believe the amount of ruckus over trying to getthings correct. Anyway hopefully somebody else will see the sense of all this - much appreciate your elucidating his ecclesiastical promotions - many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
WikiCup 2016 May newsletter
Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.
Round 2 saw three FAs (two by 
Cas Liber (submissions) and one by 
Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by 
Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by 
Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by 
Hurricanehink (submissions), 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and 
MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by 
Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by 
Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while 
The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.
If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
English Benedictine Reform
I have English Benedictine Reform at PR. Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
About Berhtwald and Glastonbury Abbey...
Hi, I just thought I'd mention this query I've raised on Berhtwald's talk page, in case you had any thoughts. Hope you're well. Nortonius (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Edward the Confessor
The son of Æthelred the Unready and Emma of Normandy, Edward succeeded Cnut the Great's son – and his half brother – Harthacnut, restoring the rule of the House of Wessex after the period of Danish rule since Cnut conquered England in 1016.
This reads as if Harthacnut is both Cnut's son and Cnut's half brother. If you can see a better way than my insertion of "own" to clarify that this is not what is meant, then please implement it. However, please understand that the original is unsatisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.215.248 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Archbishop Booth
@Ealdgyth: hi there - I have no wish to enter into an argument about to what extent the Prince-Bishop of Durham held sway over northern England, so it is best to delete it (although it is worth noting that this is what it clearly states elsewhere in Wiki). I agree with you entirely that things should be exact, as undoubtedly do I (qv. IHR etc.), so let's move on to improving the vast number of articles in much greater need of attention. You will note that this COA applies to all members of this Booth family who were bishops (hence the image was labelled as such, ie. it is not necessarily the COA of any bishop called Booth)... Many thanks. Best L'honorable (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Coats of Arms are not issued to "families" though - they are specific grants to specific individuals. You cannot assume that the COA of one Booth applies to any other Booth without a source. Each use needs to have a source that states it was the COA of that particular person. It's that simple. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)]
- I can see that we are going to have much much difficulty if you continue to take this line. Firstly they are granted to families, by virtue of the fact that male descendants (with suitable cadencing) and female members (with suitable marshalling) have the automatic right of succession to said arms. Secondly these arms of Booth predate the foundation of the College of Arms in 1484 & were not "granted" but recognised "by prescription". Please let's not get bogged down by this, unless you want an avalanche of "proof" which I am becoming more than delighted to give (but you are making this extremely petty). L'honorable (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. please feel free to check with someone else who knows about heraldry, if you don't feel inclined to believe me.- It's not petty or being bogged down to require a reliable source for something. It's just plain common sense and required to edit on Wikipedia. Rather than argue about it and try to imply something about my knowledge of things - it would be easier to just add the source. And while you're doing so - kindly read WP:OVERLINK to get a better idea of what needs linking and what words do not need linking. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed the uncited coat of arms again - it needs a source. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I saw that & I have replied on your Talk Page. L'honorable (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. qv: User talk:Hchc2009, User talk:Cassianto & Lawrence Booth - & let's draw a line under this soonest - thank you.- This all should be at Talk: Lawrence Booth. Please reply THERE, not on user talk pages. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please see Talk: Lawrence Booth - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- This all should be at Talk: Lawrence Booth. Please reply THERE, not on user talk pages. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I saw that & I have replied on your Talk Page. L'honorable (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed the uncited coat of arms again - it needs a source. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not petty or being bogged down to require a reliable source for something. It's just plain common sense and required to edit on Wikipedia. Rather than argue about it and try to imply something about my knowledge of things - it would be easier to just add the source. And while you're doing so - kindly read WP:OVERLINK to get a better idea of what needs linking and what words do not need linking. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I can see that we are going to have much much difficulty if you continue to take this line. Firstly they are granted to families, by virtue of the fact that male descendants (with suitable cadencing) and female members (with suitable marshalling) have the automatic right of succession to said arms. Secondly these arms of Booth predate the foundation of the College of Arms in 1484 & were not "granted" but recognised "by prescription". Please let's not get bogged down by this, unless you want an avalanche of "proof" which I am becoming more than delighted to give (but you are making this extremely petty). L'honorable (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I have just had a go at improving the language (not COA!) of the Lawrence Booth article which although sure is not perfect, I trust is of help.
It would be good to see a template of a good Wiki archbishop article, thereby setting a precedent. Thanks. L'honorable (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Try Hubert Walter, Robert of Jumièges, Nigel (bishop of Ely), William de Corbeil, Robert Burnell, John de Gray, William Longchamp, Alexander of Lincoln, William de St-Calais, Baldwin of Forde, Walter de Coutances, Robert de Chesney, Hilary of Chichester, Gilbert Foliot, Geoffrey (archbishop of York), Theobald of Bec, William Warelwast, Thomas of Bayeux, Stigand, Ealdred (archbishop of York), Gerard (archbishop of York), Ralph Neville.
Hi Ealdgyth - thanks for all your help and support so far & let's work out a plan as to how to make these Wiki articles read well but moreover accurately. There are consistent mistakes about the IHR being described as "for" rather than "of" (which is not a good start for historical accuracy) etc.. I have asked for a COA impaled for Archbishop Booth which I trust will be satisfactory. Meantime, please advise any other tips to ensure Wiki's accuracy. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- For one - a royal clerk is NOT a herald. Nor were most of your edits at Ralph Neville improvements. I can't help but feel like you took my good faith reply to your asking for examples as a way to get back for something... I don't know what. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, please no... I just want to see Wiki represent things accurately - maybe the way I read History at university is different from how Wiki wishes to represent it, but so long as I know what is the game plan then we can all be onside... Please.... L'honorable (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- A royal clerk is NOT a herald. Period. They are people in clerical orders who work as ... clerks for the king in the chancery or other offices. They have NOTHING to do with heralds or heraldry. It's plain wrong. Nor does changing "delivered items" to "delivered despatches" improve things. If they were dispatches, (note the spelling) it would have said letters or dispatches. Instead, items were specified and by changing to "despatches" you changed the meaning of the information entirely. At this point - your edits look very very pointy to me. To avoid that, I suggest you do NOT edit ANY of the articles that I listed above.... where you asked me for examples and I, in good faith, gave them. By going to Neville's article and then doing a bunch of changes that you've been told aren't helpful several times - such as repeatedly linking things even when they are linked in previous sentences, over capitalizing, changing meaning, etc - you make it very difficult to assume good faith for your actions. I strongly suggest you read WP:OVERLINK and the sections of the WP:MOS dealing with capitalization. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- You sound extremely angry that anyone should dare touch articles with which you are involved. BUT, I came to this with a generous spirit but am getting extremely browned off by such hostile attitudes. More to the point, how on earth can such an article have a star saying it is "recommended" when it has many mistakes? Let's not seek confrontation but surely work together harnessing our different skill sets (ie. specific knowledge). Otherwise you seem to me to be effectively telling me to get lost. L'honorable (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits were against the MOS, and changed information from what the sources state. You linked to things that were wrong (royal clerks do not link to heralds, period). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK hands up - although I know much about heraldry & it could be construed that a royal clerk was a herald - in actual fact that is exactly what they were (in that era), no doubt this is beyond the reach of Wiki. However, stop harping on about that & focus on the rest. Then we can get on well. L'honorable (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Anyway I don't want to get told off all the time so let's see what happens later.
- OK hands up - although I know much about heraldry & it could be construed that a royal clerk was a herald - in actual fact that is exactly what they were (in that era), no doubt this is beyond the reach of Wiki. However, stop harping on about that & focus on the rest. Then we can get on well. L'honorable (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits were against the MOS, and changed information from what the sources state. You linked to things that were wrong (royal clerks do not link to heralds, period). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- You sound extremely angry that anyone should dare touch articles with which you are involved. BUT, I came to this with a generous spirit but am getting extremely browned off by such hostile attitudes. More to the point, how on earth can such an article have a star saying it is "recommended" when it has many mistakes? Let's not seek confrontation but surely work together harnessing our different skill sets (ie. specific knowledge). Otherwise you seem to me to be effectively telling me to get lost. L'honorable (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- A royal clerk is NOT a herald. Period. They are people in clerical orders who work as ... clerks for the king in the chancery or other offices. They have NOTHING to do with heralds or heraldry. It's plain wrong. Nor does changing "delivered items" to "delivered despatches" improve things. If they were dispatches, (note the spelling) it would have said letters or dispatches. Instead, items were specified and by changing to "despatches" you changed the meaning of the information entirely. At this point - your edits look very very pointy to me. To avoid that, I suggest you do NOT edit ANY of the articles that I listed above.... where you asked me for examples and I, in good faith, gave them. By going to Neville's article and then doing a bunch of changes that you've been told aren't helpful several times - such as repeatedly linking things even when they are linked in previous sentences, over capitalizing, changing meaning, etc - you make it very difficult to assume good faith for your actions. I strongly suggest you read WP:OVERLINK and the sections of the WP:MOS dealing with capitalization. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, please no... I just want to see Wiki represent things accurately - maybe the way I read History at university is different from how Wiki wishes to represent it, but so long as I know what is the game plan then we can all be onside... Please.... L'honorable (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Free advice!
Complete with money-back guarantee if it's wrong.
You're not handling L'honorable well. My viewpoint of problematic new editors -- developed over too many wp:wqa and wp:ani threads -- is they exist in a quantum state a la Schrodinger's cat -- the superposition of <overeager newbie | clueless newbie | sock/troll >; that is they're not really any of those until the superposition collapses into a single state. What that means in something approaching actual English, is I think it's best to treat them as if they are any of those at the same time.
What really triggered my decision to post here was the piped links note on their page -- really?? You're right, of course, but if they can't even get the "play nice in the sandbox / don't edit war" idea down, expecting them to master such subtlety is overreach and, if they are newbie is going to make them feel more ganged up upon, and if they're not, is troll feeding.
Is it clear you're trying to do the right thing by reasonable discourse as if they were another wiki editor, but they're obviously not -- they're either a new editor with fairly bad gut instincts or someone having fun trolling us. You ask them to use article talk, they reply here -- and you encourage the behavior by replying here. And so on.
We got your back. I even made a rare mainspace edit [2] -- and if one does that too many times you can end up like poor Drmies -- "first they made me an admin, they then elected me to arbcom" (shudder, poor sap). Now I have to go say ten stupid things in the Wikipedia:: space to keep the all important mainspace % safely below ten. NE Ent 12:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- If I don't reply ... they take that to mean I think they are right. Or I get accused of not trying to help the newbie ... I did totally ignore the readdition of the COA last night - I figured someone would deal with it. But .. it's a Catch 22 - if you don't reply you're not showing good faith in trying to discuss .. if you do reply ... it's encouraging them. I've made my point about the COA needing sources and why. I'm not going to engage in that discussion again because I can't think of a way to make it clearer. As for the piped link message - I have pointed out the errors in edit summaries over and over. And the edits continue to be made. It's draining. I don't really care on things like Lawrence Booth - if they do that sort of piping there .. whatever. On an FA though, it's destructive and can lead to the article losing its status. I don't think someone who does NOT pour a lot of effort into making an article meet all of the fiddly and annoying bits of the MOS plus spending hours editing and finding sources and adding the sources can possibly imagine just how draining it is to have to repeat yourself over and over and over again on something like this. I'm glad someone has my back but ... it's stuff like this that makes people just walk away from Wikipedia. Especially being told that I'm not handling it well. What the hell am I supposed to do? Let the edits stand? NOt reply? If I don't reply, I get people telling me that I didn't AGF. I've got L'honorable over on his talk page blaming all his problems on me... you think THAT feels nice? I've tried and tried to explain things without taking it personally but with the editor blaming ME for his edit warring, how am I NOT supposed to take it personally? It'd be nice if someone went over and told THEM they aren't handling things well... sorry. It's a crappy week here and this is just totally draining all my energy. And people wonder why women don't edit more ... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Let the edits stand? Of course not. Waste your time repeating yourself over and over? Not required, not expected, and as you note, draining. I'd say if an editor asks a legit question, one reasonably polite reply, which can be as simple as a reference to (e.g. WP:OVERLINK), or WP:TEAHOUSE and you've met your obligation. On Lawrence Booth, you've had Hchc2009, TJH2018 , Cassianto , myself, Drmies reverting their edits. And HighInBC told them quite cleary via block notice how poorly they've behaved, and Drmies and Boing! said Zebedee reiterated that message in unblock declines. I actually had their talk page open in edit buffer -- I was going to link Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-03-05/Essjay to help explain why we require sources instead of self claims of expertise -- and looked at their edit history some more -- see how much time another editor spent on Talk:Gerald Loxley -- and decided they're not really worth my time. You, of course, are.
- I don't know squat about comma splices and split infinitives, and MOS makes my eyes glaze over. But I know ANI, and no one (important or experienced, at least) is going to fault you for not responding enough, or not responding to user talk messages posted after you've said you don't want to discuss things here. In fact, I'll share some I should get around to essaying sometime: when someone opens a noticeboard notice about you, you don't want to be the first responder. Just wait and see what happens. If the first replies are along the lines of "Ealdgyth isn't doing anything wrong," you don't actually have to respond at all. Or, if a responder asks you a specific question, just answer it, but otherwise no one who has spent a lot of time at ANI is going to begrudge you making the thread shorter by not adding to it. It's not an admission of guilt, or acknowledgement the other party was right, it's a silent, strong signal that you have better things to do with your wiki-time that waste in on stupid ANI threads.
- It is certainly not my intent to discourage you or make you feel less valued, simply offering advice gleaned from a decade of dispute resolution participation. When it comes to disputes, often less is more. NE Ent 13:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. That helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Blocked user...
I note that User talk:L'honorable has now been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet; is it worth reverting the Lawrence Booth article back to a stable state? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I just finished cleaning it up. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)