![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The was left on my talk page:
Hello Walter Görlitz ,
first excuse me for not using the article's talk page. I cannot work out how to manage. Indeed I want to tell you about an "edit" you made on a contribution.
Yesterday 25 Nov 2020 I inserted a contribution under the section "Parodies and other versions". A few hours later you deleted my entry and asked for me not to put it back again. I am very surprised by your action and request. Indeed when one starts editing , the following statement appears :
Anyone can edit, and every improvement helps.
Thank you for helping the world discover more! So my questions are :
- who are you to delete contributions from other people ?
- I referred to the BBC website which is perfectly correct. It is not otherwise.
- Notable , referring to the Cambridge dictionary, is important and deserving attention, because of being very good or interesting. Maybe not notable for you but you are not the only person reading. Other people could have been interested and found it is a good contribution.
Your’s - William Roger ( talk) 16:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah Ah, Ah Ah, you have a watchlist, lucky you ! I only have a Swiss watchdog, aka cuckoo clock.
You wrote on November 30 Th : this parody would simply require a reliable and secondary source to show it's notable
I’ve addressed these two points the same day. Please refer supra.
Since then, you have been splitting hairs. Remember, it’s Xmas in a few days. Time to relax and be cool. Come down from your watchtower, take off your blinkers, do not be so stubborn and please reinstate my contribution. William Roger ( talk) 15:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Walter the watchman,
if I had written somewhere in Wikipedia that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, would you have made all that fuss ? Surely not. Indeed you cannot deny that statement unless you believe that the Earth is flat and so on. It is a factual statement. So no fuss to make about it.
Coming back to my contribution that you deleted, in a rude manner, it is also a factual statement. I only said that the BBC created and put on line a parody. It’s a fact that anyone can check by going to their website. It’s a fact that I was reporting and you cannot deny it unless denying an evident fact and believing the Earth is not a globe.
On second thoughts, I can only say that from your first intervention and thereafter you have been barking up the wrong (Christmas) tree and you have been taking me through abrupt paths. Let’s make them straight again. Nothing is required regarding notability and / or secondary sources to support my contribution. FACTS, ONLY FACTS, anything else about my contribution is like discussing about the sex on angels. Completely pointless. I say it again : I look forward to your reinstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Roger ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC) sorry, I forgot to sign William Roger ( talk) 15:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Quote because WP:NCOVER makes it clear Unqte What is / Who is WP/NCOVER ? The link is invalid. William Roger ( talk) 18:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Mr Görlitz, for your information, please be aware that I have contacted Wikipedia about my contribution and your refusal of the same. William Roger ( talk) 19:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Several statements in the article assert that one lyrical variant or another is particularly common in North America, with a reference that starts “For example,” and then cites one book. This is not an acceptable Wikipedia citation. A claim that something is popular somewhere needs to cite a source backing up that popularity as fact, not a single example of its use. Unless someone can provide better sources for these assertions, I’d suggest removing them altogether. PacificBoy 00:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
As a lad I understood that the "four coalley birds" (or "colly" if you prefer) were coal tits. However recent TV programs have suggested either the common blackbird or the raven. Given the raven's association with Odin that might make some sense. Does anyone have any evidence for the original intent (as against supposition)? Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 22:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The illustration from the first known publication is here -- feel free to judge for yourself.
https://archive.org/details/mirth_without_mischief/page/n6/mode/1up Grover cleveland ( talk) 15:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This claim (or words to that effect) has been in the lede for years, attributed to Opie and Opie's Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes. What Opie and Opie actually say is more equivocal:
The last point comes closest to a claim of French origin, but it is only conditional.
Since the article was giving both more confidence and more prominence to the claim of French origin than the source it cited, I've removed this statement from the lede, and added the Opies' argument about the partridge to the "Origins" section. Grover cleveland ( talk) 23:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
From the provided sources, it seems like 12 Lords is the more common order (ten sources), with Austin's 12 Drummers the sole aberration, is that correct? Shouldn't we show 12 Lords as the default? — Ashley Y 21:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The was left on my talk page:
Hello Walter Görlitz ,
first excuse me for not using the article's talk page. I cannot work out how to manage. Indeed I want to tell you about an "edit" you made on a contribution.
Yesterday 25 Nov 2020 I inserted a contribution under the section "Parodies and other versions". A few hours later you deleted my entry and asked for me not to put it back again. I am very surprised by your action and request. Indeed when one starts editing , the following statement appears :
Anyone can edit, and every improvement helps.
Thank you for helping the world discover more! So my questions are :
- who are you to delete contributions from other people ?
- I referred to the BBC website which is perfectly correct. It is not otherwise.
- Notable , referring to the Cambridge dictionary, is important and deserving attention, because of being very good or interesting. Maybe not notable for you but you are not the only person reading. Other people could have been interested and found it is a good contribution.
Your’s - William Roger ( talk) 16:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah Ah, Ah Ah, you have a watchlist, lucky you ! I only have a Swiss watchdog, aka cuckoo clock.
You wrote on November 30 Th : this parody would simply require a reliable and secondary source to show it's notable
I’ve addressed these two points the same day. Please refer supra.
Since then, you have been splitting hairs. Remember, it’s Xmas in a few days. Time to relax and be cool. Come down from your watchtower, take off your blinkers, do not be so stubborn and please reinstate my contribution. William Roger ( talk) 15:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Walter the watchman,
if I had written somewhere in Wikipedia that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, would you have made all that fuss ? Surely not. Indeed you cannot deny that statement unless you believe that the Earth is flat and so on. It is a factual statement. So no fuss to make about it.
Coming back to my contribution that you deleted, in a rude manner, it is also a factual statement. I only said that the BBC created and put on line a parody. It’s a fact that anyone can check by going to their website. It’s a fact that I was reporting and you cannot deny it unless denying an evident fact and believing the Earth is not a globe.
On second thoughts, I can only say that from your first intervention and thereafter you have been barking up the wrong (Christmas) tree and you have been taking me through abrupt paths. Let’s make them straight again. Nothing is required regarding notability and / or secondary sources to support my contribution. FACTS, ONLY FACTS, anything else about my contribution is like discussing about the sex on angels. Completely pointless. I say it again : I look forward to your reinstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Roger ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC) sorry, I forgot to sign William Roger ( talk) 15:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Quote because WP:NCOVER makes it clear Unqte What is / Who is WP/NCOVER ? The link is invalid. William Roger ( talk) 18:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Mr Görlitz, for your information, please be aware that I have contacted Wikipedia about my contribution and your refusal of the same. William Roger ( talk) 19:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Several statements in the article assert that one lyrical variant or another is particularly common in North America, with a reference that starts “For example,” and then cites one book. This is not an acceptable Wikipedia citation. A claim that something is popular somewhere needs to cite a source backing up that popularity as fact, not a single example of its use. Unless someone can provide better sources for these assertions, I’d suggest removing them altogether. PacificBoy 00:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
As a lad I understood that the "four coalley birds" (or "colly" if you prefer) were coal tits. However recent TV programs have suggested either the common blackbird or the raven. Given the raven's association with Odin that might make some sense. Does anyone have any evidence for the original intent (as against supposition)? Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 22:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The illustration from the first known publication is here -- feel free to judge for yourself.
https://archive.org/details/mirth_without_mischief/page/n6/mode/1up Grover cleveland ( talk) 15:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This claim (or words to that effect) has been in the lede for years, attributed to Opie and Opie's Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes. What Opie and Opie actually say is more equivocal:
The last point comes closest to a claim of French origin, but it is only conditional.
Since the article was giving both more confidence and more prominence to the claim of French origin than the source it cited, I've removed this statement from the lede, and added the Opies' argument about the partridge to the "Origins" section. Grover cleveland ( talk) 23:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
From the provided sources, it seems like 12 Lords is the more common order (ten sources), with Austin's 12 Drummers the sole aberration, is that correct? Shouldn't we show 12 Lords as the default? — Ashley Y 21:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)