![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Usefulenergy ( talk) 13:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Hello and bonjour Jim. Greetings from France! Many thanks for your time and thoughts and much appreciate your reply. I am like most, a new comer to posting anything on Wikipedia and would greatly value your advice and what to do, if anything can be done without becoming a major time consuming project? Here goes!
Reference - The original, mainline Mitford family of Mitford, Northumberland. Nearly 1000 years of history. (Hugh Mitford Raymond book).
This was to try and attempt to put an end to years of misinformation, ambiguities, contradictions and diverse explanations when it comes to the Mitford family. It would appear there are many “Mitford specialists” out there? Understood we can’t escape from a degree of confusion on occasion. There are 100s (perhaps 1000s) of people who can link their family ancestry and pedigree to the Mitford family. Inadvertently, mistakes have been made and these tend to get passed on. However, there is only one main bloodline of the Mitford clan over the past 976 years. I am the last of that mainline. We are the Mitford mainline family and not the Mitford girls etc. All other Mitfords are sub and / or junior branches.
My intention is not to wave flags nor drift along the lines of arrogance but to, once and for all, put the Mitford record 100% straight. As legal descendant and an heir (Mitford Estate Act 1854, Houses of Parliament, Westminster, London, a copy of this is printed in the book), that was the reason I wrote the book “The Mitford Family, nearly 1000 years of history”. To reiterate – to set the record straight – and finally to put the true facts of my family, the original mainline family in the public domain from 1042/1066 to now. It took ten years of in-depth desk and field research to get it factually correct.
Up to 2016 it had not been done before. It is the first time my family (myself) has published this official, total in-depth account of the entire mainline from its origin in 1042.
As I live in France, not the UK. I chose a small Newcastle publisher close to my family village of Mitford to publish this book. He did a small, hard back print run of the book and unfortunately we don’t have the time, staff, funds and network to send copies to national media, magazines, expensive marketing and PR etc. To be honest, most are not interested in boring history books about very old English families. It was not intended to be a best seller, but rather as an accurate, well researched reference document of the Mitford family of Mitford, setting the record straight.
Up to when I popped my head above the parapets of Mitford Castle (the ruins of…..) and the death of Brigadier Edward (Teddy) Mitford, last squire of Mitford (my next of kin) the Church of England and many others have been quick to the fold with changes, statements etc. Over the years I have noticed that Wikipedia has provided incorrect understandings, nuances and ambiguities of the Mitford family. As you will perhaps note in your records many changes, frivolous ambiguities, adjustments and flowery statements have evolved over the years. Many have been corrected. I have no intention to keep a record of all this as don’t have secretaries, archivists, librarians, personal assistants at hand as do many others, nor do I have the money and time. The least I could do was say thank you to Wikipedia in three lines on page 11 of my book. Kindly appreciate I have no desire to become part of any public debate or crossfire with any specialists or the “Mitford specialists”.
Without going into a long diatribe since WW2 (Unity & Diana with Hitler etc) the Mitford name has been overrun by other Mitfords, Deborah Mitford, Duchess of Devonshire was the last of the Mitford girls, I am last of the Mitford bloodline since 1042. Hundreds of best selling books have been written about the Mitford girls/sisters, films made, records and DVD's, the girls themselves have written well over 50 titles and best sellers themselves, not one of the Mitford girls has ever visited Mitford! They represent a junior branch along with other branches etc. All these books cover the frivolities, scandals and activities of the Mitford girls, not where they came from! The Mitford girls represented a summit of extravagance, paradox and complexity. A contrast of wanton, high-pitched aristocratic frivolity to the totally opposite true, humble and democratic endeavors of the rest of this extraordinary family. So well explained in my book.
The Mitford family and its links are vast and extensive. The name is found all over the world, streets, hospitals, buildings, lakes, rivers, etc, the list is endless and has nothing to do with the Mitford girls!
To reiterate the above… my book represents the official statement of the original democratic, mainline Mitford family of Mitford, Northumberland since 1042 and its members, activities and achievements, where the Mitford name, family and dynasty started to where it is today. All very best wishes and very many thanks. I raise a glass to you! Hugh.
Hello Jim and many thanks for your reply. Well understood. Many thanks indeed; it is perhaps clear you perhaps miss the raison de etre and perspective of what I am trying to explain. Perhaps incorrectly....? However, the book is there in the public domain to say "this is the original Mitford family and what it stood for. When and if I get paid I will receive £1 less tax for each book that sells for around £16. It is not an advertising drive as you assume? More to make people aware. Totally apart from the Mitford girls! One of your colleagues suggested moving it to the Wikipedia "Mitford family" page (with reference)! Do you realize just what he has said? That page is dedicated to the Mitford Girls/sisters, a junior aristocratic BRANCH of my family! Perhaps totally inappropriate?
My family is not titled, we are not lords, except of the manor, what we are is the ORIGINAL MITFORD FAMILY SINCE 1042. I hold the legal archives of the Mitford family, stretching back through the generations...... nothing to do with those of the Mitford girls! Wikipedia has no mention whatsoever of the ORIGINAL MITFORD FAMILY and activities, achievements etc. This is my book. That is why I contacted you. Evidently it would appear and very sad that Wikipedia is unable to understand and or appreciate this for the benefit of others to lend understanding that the Mitford family does not consist of 6 frivolous sisters? Myself, most very certainly not chasing money or fame etc! Just someone trying to put my family on record OVER AND ABOVE THE BLAST and reality that a duchess can do at the flick of a finger. She was a charming person! Hugh My apologies for your time and once again very many thanks indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usefulenergy ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Good morning @Cullen328,
thank you for your answer. I'll follow your advice and I was wondering if you could help me to edit my page on Wikipedia.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
Paolo Restani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolo Restani ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for bearing with me through the AfD. I think it was a fairer process and now it will be easier to defend the deletion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Jim. I got your message; I'm genuinely sorry for the error. I honestly don't recall making any changes or edits to the article since talking to you about the disclosure, but I apologize. Is it considered an 'edit' when I ask questions or dialogue on talk pages? I looked back on my Contributions history, and that was all I could see I had done -- if I missed something, please let me know so that I can make sure not to make the same error again.
I have added the disclosure to my User page; do I need to put it anywhere else, or will my User page suffice? Thank you for your help. ARynan ( talk) 21:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't realize that; I'm sorry. I'll be more careful. Just to be clear, though: for the article in question, I am not being paid monetarily; do I need to be specific about that in the disclosure, or does it make a difference? Also, where is the talk page of the article? I can't seem to figure out where it is. It's probably right in front of my nose. I'm sorry to keep asking so many questions. ARynan ( talk) 21:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Update: Found Article Talk page and added Disclosure. I want to be clear that I am not receiving any monetary compensation from this, so should I specify that in the disclosure? ARynan ( talk) 21:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joy-Ann Reid. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
93.86.101.167 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism after final warning. Block this jerk forthwith please. Singing the name of a deceased editor in multiple places is far too trollish to stand. Please roll back edits also. John from Idegon ( talk) 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).
Thank you for your interest in the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865). There is much written about slavery, but more could be covered about restrictions on black citizenship (which black communities might be more aware of that repression, beyond just slavery), plus add sources. Continuing the list: Of the 15 U.S. slave states in 1860, the Confederacy was formed in February 1861 by the lower 6 Cotton States ( SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA) plus TX joining on March 2, 1861 ( Texas Independence Day from 1836). The other 8 slave states (VA, NC, TN, KY, AR, MO, MD, DE) remained in the Union during the Battle of Fort Sumter in April 1861, but there were also more states, as exceptions. The "free state" of New Jersey had legacy slaves all during the Civil War, only freed by 13th Amendment in mid-December 1865. The new state of West Virginia (WV) had resident slaves, and gained statehood as a Union slave state, giving emancipation only in February 1865, ~2 months before the end of the Civil War. Plus Washington, D.C. had Union slaves all during the first year of the War, to be freed after 1862 by compensated emancipation, which might have taken a long time there. The New Mexico Territory, which attempted statehood in 1850, had Native-American slaves which should have been freed during 1862, but the system of peonage evidently trapped them, until the Peonage Act of 1867, with statehood delayed until 1912. Nearly 100 years later, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson signed anti-peonage laws to close similar loopholes in 1960s masked-slavery, where people were still held captive by economic circumstances. Although the main focus has been 1861-1865, there were methods to disguise slavery for over a century longer. So the whole subject is completely fascinating, with dozens of Wikipedians writing about each aspect, but again, more is needed about restrictions against free blacks or others, as it seems slavery was followed by an immigration problem against freedmen. More later.- Wikid77 ( talk) 23:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
When: Wednesday, June 6 at 6:00 p.m.
See you soon! Niki, Lodewijk, Ben, Stephen, and Wayne | ( Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Per your revert on this, please clarify. Nakon 05:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cullen - just a polite note to let you know that I've unblocked this user, as I think they're unlikely to repeat the behaviour that caused the block. All the best, Yunshui 雲 水 14:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Succession to the British throne. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I am a loss when stating a fact is a proble. The Palestinians authorities are recognized by the U.S and most western nations as terrorists. that should be sufficient. KirinMagic ( talk) 21:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Junípero Serra. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Please block User:Emilyiship'05 indefinitely because this user's is giving threats on her talk page . Clockist ( talk) 15:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
User:Kudpung/What do admins do?.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
05:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lawrence Liang. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Jim, Thanks for your comments on NeilN's page. I didn't really appreciate the bad faith assumptions about my AE request. One thing that came out of it is that if I unfortunately see comments like that that make me feel something is off, I'll get a second opinion. Since apparently NeilN trusts your judgement, I hope you don't mind if I ping you on the offchance I see a comment or attack that perhaps warrants attention. Thanks, Sir Joseph (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Shorten. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey, hi, um, how does one subscribe to the feedback request service? Can anyone sign up? And do the updates always go to one's talk page?
(Sorry - I am very much n00bsauce.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Sanders ( talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I will definitely check out the article you've kindly recommended - I majored in Linguistics at university, was Deputy Editor of the student paper, and now I help to draft (and to argue various interpretations of) Legislation, so I have an established record of not contributing much but always being the first person to form an opinion on others' contributions. :D I see that my question above is 'unsigned' - I don't know how to create or attach a signature on here! Isn't that terrible?! I feel really impolite! That said, I've been eyeing your sign-off, and I'm going to try a little bit of alteration and see if I have cracked what is essentially my first 'coding', lol… HerRadicalness Change my mind, change my life. Am I allowed to do that, with the name replacement? If not, is there a way to change my username so that it's not my IRL name, or to have one username for my contributions and another for… correcting people's grammar and stuff, like the great big grammar fascist that I am? Also, is this a thing? Charlie Sanders ( talk) 09:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
in the teahouse you referenced that we should remove any potential politicians from the wiki. But what about Glenn Jacobs, and Terry Gerin from the wiki as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blair277 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Cullen328, Good day. Advice needed. I agreed on the ground it is a serious academic publisher and published notable books which it deserves a place in Wikipedia as compared to thousands popular culture article exist in Wikipedia. If there is practice which I am not aware of that Wikipedia would be OK to improve the article as with a WP:BEFORE found not WP:RS to establish (as per Wikipedia guidelines), I am more than happy to withdraw the nomination without delay as my nomination is based on the said guidelines. Do advise. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 04:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Just curious... what do you think the whole Melania jacket thing is about if not politics?
Atsme
📞
📧
23:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Cullen, we cover politics but we are supposed to use editorial judgment. The essay, WP:Editorial discretion, is spot on. As for criticism of my analogy, I have to ask, when did it become unacceptable to use analogies during a TP discussion to demonstrate the difference between notable encyclopedic content vs not notable, gossipy material that belongs in Cosmopolitan or Fashion Today? I have to laugh - MSNBC is referring to the jacket caper as the new Yanny vs Laurel debate. 😂 The analogy I used demonstrated the stark contrast between the jacket VS what is happening inside one of the most important federal agencies in the U.S., especially after it was revealed that an FBI agent was romantically involved with a NYTimes reporter. D'ya think maybe there's a COI there? Regardless, as editors, we don't need 20 different RS for inclusion of important material - one RS is all that's needed. The jacket caper is clearly NOTNEWS #2 - doesn't matter how many sources are covering it. It was a one-time deal, she wore it boarding the plane, and took it off when she went to see the children. See my comment at the TP, as it also links to RS that speak to her work with children. Atsme 📞 📧 02:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Patrick Treacy. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You are hereby invited, on behalf of The Signpost editorial team to submit an article on Kayfabe. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
It's too soon even to put district info in commented out? Figure it's safe to take that route and uncomment after she wins. HangingCurve Swing for the fence 01:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Pvqnp940a ( talk · contribs). The CIR is strong with this one, but if we can at least get him to use edit summaries and to accept input from others he might avoid a trip to ANI. Could you perhaps try to speak to him on his talkpage? He has so far responded negatively to contact from anyone: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I'm going to invite NeilN and Doug Weller as well. Softlavender ( talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
Dream and Hijiri88 are both valued editors who seem to have a personality clash. They are not children. Your threat to block them for a "very lengthy period of time" is out of line with what the community said at last nights ANI. If Hijiri88 continues to try to interact with Dream, the next step should be an IBan. Should you carry out your threat, then depending on the circumstances that lead any possible future ANI entry, it could be clear miuse of tools.
Hopefully the drama is now over, but if not, please leave handling it to others. As you endorse Cullen's heavy handed warnings, this goes for you too Alex Shih. Thank you. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: (1) Please stop talking about "the community" as if it consisted entirely of yourself and the people who edit at ANI. Those people are not the community. They are not even close to being a representative sample of the community. (2) To complain that any dispute keeps reaching ANI is to completely miss the point. The main problem is that the drama board exists in the first place. ANI is a disruptive forum. The very existence of ANI creates disruption that would not otherwise happen by providing a venue for it. The correct solution is to shut down ANI. Then there would not be a venue for this sort of thing. Problem solved. (3) I am completely fed up with your mishandling of this situation. James500 ( talk) 07:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Usefulenergy ( talk) 13:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Hello and bonjour Jim. Greetings from France! Many thanks for your time and thoughts and much appreciate your reply. I am like most, a new comer to posting anything on Wikipedia and would greatly value your advice and what to do, if anything can be done without becoming a major time consuming project? Here goes!
Reference - The original, mainline Mitford family of Mitford, Northumberland. Nearly 1000 years of history. (Hugh Mitford Raymond book).
This was to try and attempt to put an end to years of misinformation, ambiguities, contradictions and diverse explanations when it comes to the Mitford family. It would appear there are many “Mitford specialists” out there? Understood we can’t escape from a degree of confusion on occasion. There are 100s (perhaps 1000s) of people who can link their family ancestry and pedigree to the Mitford family. Inadvertently, mistakes have been made and these tend to get passed on. However, there is only one main bloodline of the Mitford clan over the past 976 years. I am the last of that mainline. We are the Mitford mainline family and not the Mitford girls etc. All other Mitfords are sub and / or junior branches.
My intention is not to wave flags nor drift along the lines of arrogance but to, once and for all, put the Mitford record 100% straight. As legal descendant and an heir (Mitford Estate Act 1854, Houses of Parliament, Westminster, London, a copy of this is printed in the book), that was the reason I wrote the book “The Mitford Family, nearly 1000 years of history”. To reiterate – to set the record straight – and finally to put the true facts of my family, the original mainline family in the public domain from 1042/1066 to now. It took ten years of in-depth desk and field research to get it factually correct.
Up to 2016 it had not been done before. It is the first time my family (myself) has published this official, total in-depth account of the entire mainline from its origin in 1042.
As I live in France, not the UK. I chose a small Newcastle publisher close to my family village of Mitford to publish this book. He did a small, hard back print run of the book and unfortunately we don’t have the time, staff, funds and network to send copies to national media, magazines, expensive marketing and PR etc. To be honest, most are not interested in boring history books about very old English families. It was not intended to be a best seller, but rather as an accurate, well researched reference document of the Mitford family of Mitford, setting the record straight.
Up to when I popped my head above the parapets of Mitford Castle (the ruins of…..) and the death of Brigadier Edward (Teddy) Mitford, last squire of Mitford (my next of kin) the Church of England and many others have been quick to the fold with changes, statements etc. Over the years I have noticed that Wikipedia has provided incorrect understandings, nuances and ambiguities of the Mitford family. As you will perhaps note in your records many changes, frivolous ambiguities, adjustments and flowery statements have evolved over the years. Many have been corrected. I have no intention to keep a record of all this as don’t have secretaries, archivists, librarians, personal assistants at hand as do many others, nor do I have the money and time. The least I could do was say thank you to Wikipedia in three lines on page 11 of my book. Kindly appreciate I have no desire to become part of any public debate or crossfire with any specialists or the “Mitford specialists”.
Without going into a long diatribe since WW2 (Unity & Diana with Hitler etc) the Mitford name has been overrun by other Mitfords, Deborah Mitford, Duchess of Devonshire was the last of the Mitford girls, I am last of the Mitford bloodline since 1042. Hundreds of best selling books have been written about the Mitford girls/sisters, films made, records and DVD's, the girls themselves have written well over 50 titles and best sellers themselves, not one of the Mitford girls has ever visited Mitford! They represent a junior branch along with other branches etc. All these books cover the frivolities, scandals and activities of the Mitford girls, not where they came from! The Mitford girls represented a summit of extravagance, paradox and complexity. A contrast of wanton, high-pitched aristocratic frivolity to the totally opposite true, humble and democratic endeavors of the rest of this extraordinary family. So well explained in my book.
The Mitford family and its links are vast and extensive. The name is found all over the world, streets, hospitals, buildings, lakes, rivers, etc, the list is endless and has nothing to do with the Mitford girls!
To reiterate the above… my book represents the official statement of the original democratic, mainline Mitford family of Mitford, Northumberland since 1042 and its members, activities and achievements, where the Mitford name, family and dynasty started to where it is today. All very best wishes and very many thanks. I raise a glass to you! Hugh.
Hello Jim and many thanks for your reply. Well understood. Many thanks indeed; it is perhaps clear you perhaps miss the raison de etre and perspective of what I am trying to explain. Perhaps incorrectly....? However, the book is there in the public domain to say "this is the original Mitford family and what it stood for. When and if I get paid I will receive £1 less tax for each book that sells for around £16. It is not an advertising drive as you assume? More to make people aware. Totally apart from the Mitford girls! One of your colleagues suggested moving it to the Wikipedia "Mitford family" page (with reference)! Do you realize just what he has said? That page is dedicated to the Mitford Girls/sisters, a junior aristocratic BRANCH of my family! Perhaps totally inappropriate?
My family is not titled, we are not lords, except of the manor, what we are is the ORIGINAL MITFORD FAMILY SINCE 1042. I hold the legal archives of the Mitford family, stretching back through the generations...... nothing to do with those of the Mitford girls! Wikipedia has no mention whatsoever of the ORIGINAL MITFORD FAMILY and activities, achievements etc. This is my book. That is why I contacted you. Evidently it would appear and very sad that Wikipedia is unable to understand and or appreciate this for the benefit of others to lend understanding that the Mitford family does not consist of 6 frivolous sisters? Myself, most very certainly not chasing money or fame etc! Just someone trying to put my family on record OVER AND ABOVE THE BLAST and reality that a duchess can do at the flick of a finger. She was a charming person! Hugh My apologies for your time and once again very many thanks indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usefulenergy ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Good morning @Cullen328,
thank you for your answer. I'll follow your advice and I was wondering if you could help me to edit my page on Wikipedia.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
Paolo Restani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolo Restani ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for bearing with me through the AfD. I think it was a fairer process and now it will be easier to defend the deletion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Jim. I got your message; I'm genuinely sorry for the error. I honestly don't recall making any changes or edits to the article since talking to you about the disclosure, but I apologize. Is it considered an 'edit' when I ask questions or dialogue on talk pages? I looked back on my Contributions history, and that was all I could see I had done -- if I missed something, please let me know so that I can make sure not to make the same error again.
I have added the disclosure to my User page; do I need to put it anywhere else, or will my User page suffice? Thank you for your help. ARynan ( talk) 21:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't realize that; I'm sorry. I'll be more careful. Just to be clear, though: for the article in question, I am not being paid monetarily; do I need to be specific about that in the disclosure, or does it make a difference? Also, where is the talk page of the article? I can't seem to figure out where it is. It's probably right in front of my nose. I'm sorry to keep asking so many questions. ARynan ( talk) 21:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Update: Found Article Talk page and added Disclosure. I want to be clear that I am not receiving any monetary compensation from this, so should I specify that in the disclosure? ARynan ( talk) 21:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joy-Ann Reid. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
93.86.101.167 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism after final warning. Block this jerk forthwith please. Singing the name of a deceased editor in multiple places is far too trollish to stand. Please roll back edits also. John from Idegon ( talk) 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).
Thank you for your interest in the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865). There is much written about slavery, but more could be covered about restrictions on black citizenship (which black communities might be more aware of that repression, beyond just slavery), plus add sources. Continuing the list: Of the 15 U.S. slave states in 1860, the Confederacy was formed in February 1861 by the lower 6 Cotton States ( SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA) plus TX joining on March 2, 1861 ( Texas Independence Day from 1836). The other 8 slave states (VA, NC, TN, KY, AR, MO, MD, DE) remained in the Union during the Battle of Fort Sumter in April 1861, but there were also more states, as exceptions. The "free state" of New Jersey had legacy slaves all during the Civil War, only freed by 13th Amendment in mid-December 1865. The new state of West Virginia (WV) had resident slaves, and gained statehood as a Union slave state, giving emancipation only in February 1865, ~2 months before the end of the Civil War. Plus Washington, D.C. had Union slaves all during the first year of the War, to be freed after 1862 by compensated emancipation, which might have taken a long time there. The New Mexico Territory, which attempted statehood in 1850, had Native-American slaves which should have been freed during 1862, but the system of peonage evidently trapped them, until the Peonage Act of 1867, with statehood delayed until 1912. Nearly 100 years later, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson signed anti-peonage laws to close similar loopholes in 1960s masked-slavery, where people were still held captive by economic circumstances. Although the main focus has been 1861-1865, there were methods to disguise slavery for over a century longer. So the whole subject is completely fascinating, with dozens of Wikipedians writing about each aspect, but again, more is needed about restrictions against free blacks or others, as it seems slavery was followed by an immigration problem against freedmen. More later.- Wikid77 ( talk) 23:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
When: Wednesday, June 6 at 6:00 p.m.
See you soon! Niki, Lodewijk, Ben, Stephen, and Wayne | ( Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Per your revert on this, please clarify. Nakon 05:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cullen - just a polite note to let you know that I've unblocked this user, as I think they're unlikely to repeat the behaviour that caused the block. All the best, Yunshui 雲 水 14:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Succession to the British throne. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I am a loss when stating a fact is a proble. The Palestinians authorities are recognized by the U.S and most western nations as terrorists. that should be sufficient. KirinMagic ( talk) 21:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Junípero Serra. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Please block User:Emilyiship'05 indefinitely because this user's is giving threats on her talk page . Clockist ( talk) 15:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
User:Kudpung/What do admins do?.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
05:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lawrence Liang. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Jim, Thanks for your comments on NeilN's page. I didn't really appreciate the bad faith assumptions about my AE request. One thing that came out of it is that if I unfortunately see comments like that that make me feel something is off, I'll get a second opinion. Since apparently NeilN trusts your judgement, I hope you don't mind if I ping you on the offchance I see a comment or attack that perhaps warrants attention. Thanks, Sir Joseph (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Shorten. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey, hi, um, how does one subscribe to the feedback request service? Can anyone sign up? And do the updates always go to one's talk page?
(Sorry - I am very much n00bsauce.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Sanders ( talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I will definitely check out the article you've kindly recommended - I majored in Linguistics at university, was Deputy Editor of the student paper, and now I help to draft (and to argue various interpretations of) Legislation, so I have an established record of not contributing much but always being the first person to form an opinion on others' contributions. :D I see that my question above is 'unsigned' - I don't know how to create or attach a signature on here! Isn't that terrible?! I feel really impolite! That said, I've been eyeing your sign-off, and I'm going to try a little bit of alteration and see if I have cracked what is essentially my first 'coding', lol… HerRadicalness Change my mind, change my life. Am I allowed to do that, with the name replacement? If not, is there a way to change my username so that it's not my IRL name, or to have one username for my contributions and another for… correcting people's grammar and stuff, like the great big grammar fascist that I am? Also, is this a thing? Charlie Sanders ( talk) 09:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
in the teahouse you referenced that we should remove any potential politicians from the wiki. But what about Glenn Jacobs, and Terry Gerin from the wiki as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blair277 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Cullen328, Good day. Advice needed. I agreed on the ground it is a serious academic publisher and published notable books which it deserves a place in Wikipedia as compared to thousands popular culture article exist in Wikipedia. If there is practice which I am not aware of that Wikipedia would be OK to improve the article as with a WP:BEFORE found not WP:RS to establish (as per Wikipedia guidelines), I am more than happy to withdraw the nomination without delay as my nomination is based on the said guidelines. Do advise. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 04:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Just curious... what do you think the whole Melania jacket thing is about if not politics?
Atsme
📞
📧
23:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Cullen, we cover politics but we are supposed to use editorial judgment. The essay, WP:Editorial discretion, is spot on. As for criticism of my analogy, I have to ask, when did it become unacceptable to use analogies during a TP discussion to demonstrate the difference between notable encyclopedic content vs not notable, gossipy material that belongs in Cosmopolitan or Fashion Today? I have to laugh - MSNBC is referring to the jacket caper as the new Yanny vs Laurel debate. 😂 The analogy I used demonstrated the stark contrast between the jacket VS what is happening inside one of the most important federal agencies in the U.S., especially after it was revealed that an FBI agent was romantically involved with a NYTimes reporter. D'ya think maybe there's a COI there? Regardless, as editors, we don't need 20 different RS for inclusion of important material - one RS is all that's needed. The jacket caper is clearly NOTNEWS #2 - doesn't matter how many sources are covering it. It was a one-time deal, she wore it boarding the plane, and took it off when she went to see the children. See my comment at the TP, as it also links to RS that speak to her work with children. Atsme 📞 📧 02:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Patrick Treacy. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
You are hereby invited, on behalf of The Signpost editorial team to submit an article on Kayfabe. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
It's too soon even to put district info in commented out? Figure it's safe to take that route and uncomment after she wins. HangingCurve Swing for the fence 01:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Pvqnp940a ( talk · contribs). The CIR is strong with this one, but if we can at least get him to use edit summaries and to accept input from others he might avoid a trip to ANI. Could you perhaps try to speak to him on his talkpage? He has so far responded negatively to contact from anyone: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I'm going to invite NeilN and Doug Weller as well. Softlavender ( talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
Dream and Hijiri88 are both valued editors who seem to have a personality clash. They are not children. Your threat to block them for a "very lengthy period of time" is out of line with what the community said at last nights ANI. If Hijiri88 continues to try to interact with Dream, the next step should be an IBan. Should you carry out your threat, then depending on the circumstances that lead any possible future ANI entry, it could be clear miuse of tools.
Hopefully the drama is now over, but if not, please leave handling it to others. As you endorse Cullen's heavy handed warnings, this goes for you too Alex Shih. Thank you. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: (1) Please stop talking about "the community" as if it consisted entirely of yourself and the people who edit at ANI. Those people are not the community. They are not even close to being a representative sample of the community. (2) To complain that any dispute keeps reaching ANI is to completely miss the point. The main problem is that the drama board exists in the first place. ANI is a disruptive forum. The very existence of ANI creates disruption that would not otherwise happen by providing a venue for it. The correct solution is to shut down ANI. Then there would not be a venue for this sort of thing. Problem solved. (3) I am completely fed up with your mishandling of this situation. James500 ( talk) 07:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)