This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The edits made by Smalljim are too drastic a departure from the style and layout of the original article not to be done without prior discussion on the talk page. The editor concerned has developed a somewhat creepy habit of following Lobsterthermidor around WP and stamping his own mark on the latter's article. This is becoming very tedious indeed for Lobsterthermidor, and is viewed by him as vexatious. If you wish to change the central format of the article please discuss here. If you want to expand the text, great go ahead. If you want to challenge any sources, please add the usual cn tags. But please don't just "do it your way" to continue your long-running editorial battle with me. Even Your very first removal of my text "It was especially remarkable for having been held in a direct line of family succession from 1086 or earlier to 1947" [1] is inexplicable. Please see the source I provided: Lauder, 1981, p.36: "The records of ownership are incomplete but it seems certain that Dunsland passed in unbroken line down the long centuries from the days of William the Conqueror until it was sold in 1947". ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 14:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC))
That doesn't mean you can edit war with this editor, smalljim. BRD has one R in it. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
References
I've undone your sloppy partial revert which reinstated several factual errors, made the formatting much worse (13 level-two headers in only 760-odd words!) and left the referencing out of sync with the text, apart from some other less important problems. It seems that your dislike for me has overwhelmed any need you may feel to maintain the quality of our articles. Please stop damaging Wikipedia with your inaccurate contributions. What you claim are vexatious alterations of no importance to your hallowed text, I see as the very core of an accurate reference work. You know that if you don't want your work to be altered, you don't publish it here.
Are you going to instigate a dispute resolution process? Whether you do or not, you'll eventually have to accept that your work is susceptible to improvement - probably by me, because no-one else is likely to do it, until some way is found to stop you being so disruptive. It's so damn silly because by taking more care in scrutinising your work in the light of our policies and guidelines before you post it, and being more amenable to changes to what you write you could still be a real benefit to WP.
And for the record, I don't get any pleasure out of doing this. Your reappearance forced me to resume editing here when I didn't really want to, out of my sense of responsibility to the project. — SMALL JIM 11:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I've left a note on the page querying whether Tristram Risdon is a reliable source for the medieval history of Dunsland. Academic history was in its infancy in the 17th century, when Risdon was writing, and according to "Topographical Writers in South-West England", (Mark Brayshay ed), Risdon's original manuscript was "shamefully hacked around by a rogue publisher in the 18th century" prior to publication, and it is not known "what Risdon himself actually wrote". I can't find any modern academic historians who seem to be using him as a source for pre-17th century factual history. Is there a good reason for believing him to be a reliable source for the 13th century details etc. referenced here? Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The edits made by Smalljim are too drastic a departure from the style and layout of the original article not to be done without prior discussion on the talk page. The editor concerned has developed a somewhat creepy habit of following Lobsterthermidor around WP and stamping his own mark on the latter's article. This is becoming very tedious indeed for Lobsterthermidor, and is viewed by him as vexatious. If you wish to change the central format of the article please discuss here. If you want to expand the text, great go ahead. If you want to challenge any sources, please add the usual cn tags. But please don't just "do it your way" to continue your long-running editorial battle with me. Even Your very first removal of my text "It was especially remarkable for having been held in a direct line of family succession from 1086 or earlier to 1947" [1] is inexplicable. Please see the source I provided: Lauder, 1981, p.36: "The records of ownership are incomplete but it seems certain that Dunsland passed in unbroken line down the long centuries from the days of William the Conqueror until it was sold in 1947". ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 14:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC))
That doesn't mean you can edit war with this editor, smalljim. BRD has one R in it. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
References
I've undone your sloppy partial revert which reinstated several factual errors, made the formatting much worse (13 level-two headers in only 760-odd words!) and left the referencing out of sync with the text, apart from some other less important problems. It seems that your dislike for me has overwhelmed any need you may feel to maintain the quality of our articles. Please stop damaging Wikipedia with your inaccurate contributions. What you claim are vexatious alterations of no importance to your hallowed text, I see as the very core of an accurate reference work. You know that if you don't want your work to be altered, you don't publish it here.
Are you going to instigate a dispute resolution process? Whether you do or not, you'll eventually have to accept that your work is susceptible to improvement - probably by me, because no-one else is likely to do it, until some way is found to stop you being so disruptive. It's so damn silly because by taking more care in scrutinising your work in the light of our policies and guidelines before you post it, and being more amenable to changes to what you write you could still be a real benefit to WP.
And for the record, I don't get any pleasure out of doing this. Your reappearance forced me to resume editing here when I didn't really want to, out of my sense of responsibility to the project. — SMALL JIM 11:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I've left a note on the page querying whether Tristram Risdon is a reliable source for the medieval history of Dunsland. Academic history was in its infancy in the 17th century, when Risdon was writing, and according to "Topographical Writers in South-West England", (Mark Brayshay ed), Risdon's original manuscript was "shamefully hacked around by a rogue publisher in the 18th century" prior to publication, and it is not known "what Risdon himself actually wrote". I can't find any modern academic historians who seem to be using him as a source for pre-17th century factual history. Is there a good reason for believing him to be a reliable source for the 13th century details etc. referenced here? Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)