![]() | This page 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. |
I am replying to your question, as to his date of birth. How certin can one be about someone that lived over 500 years ago, the changes made were done according to the information contained in The Royal Ancestry Bible Royal ancestors of 300 Ameircan Families By Michel L. Call ISBN 1-933194-22-7 (chart 1696). Thanks Dthem 2000 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Moved from Userpage Lindsay 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Funny coincidence! But yes, it's mostly a local thing. You wouldn't have heard of it unless you'd lived in the area. VanTucky Talk 19:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good edits imo - the line that "It is also considered unfit for Christ to have had siblings." only arrived a few days ago, and I only tagged it for 'citation needed' as I thought it an interesting comment that might be sourced somewhere - but nothign has turned up. Springnuts ( talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"Removing warnings from your talk page is often considered vandalism." I didn't know that. Thanks. 70.101.182.149 ( talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
He is an animal..:) Igor Berger ( talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello LindsayH.
I noticed that you revert
vandalism. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world!
However, I have noticed that you do not always leave warnings on the users talk pages. You should always leave an appropriate warning after reverting vandalism. (The full list of talk page warnings may be found
here, along with some suggestions and guidelines for using them.)
Be sure to leave the correct level of warning, and if the user has been warned four times in the last month, (Check the users talk page history. Some users remove warnings from their talk pages.) report by going to
this page and following the instructions.
Thank you again, and may vandalism fail.
Ultra! 19:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ultra!
19:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
please look into your reporting before doing so, if you looked at the history i was the one that created the page and then deleted it, and i am now aware on how to actually move the page the correct way (currently in process) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.166.139 ( talk) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I just dont like the Rangers so i put that in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.187.3 ( talk) 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to Dalit Advisai descent which is false. In fact, it is vandalism bordering on libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.144.7 ( talk) 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
HI Linday I noticed you reverted me. Badgering aside, the idea of the project proposed is not to create a gazillion sub stubs. Part of it is to set up a coordinated project revolving around FritzBot to clean up all existing settlement articles by country before new content is generated. So the title of the oppostion isn't an accurate statement. Really it should be just for those who oppose the whole idea not just genrating new content as that was what the old proposal was about ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmm I see what you are saying. but there is more to the idea than what it implies thats all. As I said, it should just be oppostion to bots generating or editing existing articles in general not just creating them en masse. Anyway, on a different note I created the article on Ar Rifa` earlier which the bot would have started from the missing list. There are many thousands of places with a population around 100,000 missing from wikipedia thats all. But I respect your view and have tried not to "badger" people this time. I only seemed to hassle people before because they had misinterpreted the proposal. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your revert, but the information I provided is definitely worth including. This has recently become a big news story since the Prime Minister apologized for the treatment of Native American children. I would also be confident in saying that Scott is notorious for his actions in this, but I'll lighten up on such descriptions if you really feel it's necessary. Cale ( talk) 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I must confess I edited it in a hurry. But there is no issue in stating that Robert the Bruce was a descendant of Henry Beauclerc.
haha yes you are completely correct..if we go back far enough we are all related. i just was not sure if people knew that robert the bruce was also a descendant of william the conqueror just like his arch enemy edward I...I thought it would be an interesting trivia fact on Robert the Bruce as wikipedia sometimes has trivia information on the various biographies of notable people.
Robert the Bruce was also a descendant of Alfred the great, charlemagne, brian boruma, alfred the great,and a host of other royals. not to mention he is a descendants of the "first" king of scotland kenneth macalpin.
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot ( talk) 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought you would be amused to know that Karl Barth, like most German intellectuals used latin script when writing by hand rather than the gothic handwriting favoured by the Nazis. He thus avoided all those unusual characters favoured by Kelisi. How paradoxical that Kelisi in his enthusiasm to attack Nazis has become besotted by the very characters that were their hallmark! Any native German speaker happily uses an "e" in place of an umlaut, becuase they recognise the umlaut as a printers device. I would be interested to know whether Martin Luther's printed Bible used umlauts. Although you are probably aware that ye was used by early English printers, who used "y" rather than "th". Heaven forbid that Kelisi should discover this and start replacing every "th" in Wikipedia with "y" Fred20x ( talk) 15:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I rather thought you might. Trouble is that I fail to see how they can possibly claim a figure from the Catholic church so many centuries before Anglicanism was even invented? Unless they are claiming some form of patriarchal descent, in which case that shows a shocking lack of understanding on their parts as to how Anglicanism was born. Oh well... I've got no desire to argue the point! Aula TPN 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello there,Hope your'e doing well.I think you missunderstood one of my edits when added Henry VI entry as Henry VI of England and France.By this entry I mean bieng also King of France not as you understood it as meaning Henry VI of France.I should have adjusted the entry a bit.I meant it as bieng "Henri II of France" not Henry VI of France and England.Apologies.Anyway if you are intrested in releated subjects concerning Henry VI(Henri II of France) and the Dual-Monarchy you should check out my article.Here is the link. The Dual-Monarchy of England and France.Goodbye. -- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 05:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this was just an oversight, but when you moved Day at the Races to A Day at the Races (video), and then redirected the old title to the disambiguation page, you didn't change any of the other articles that linked to the old title; in particular, you didn't change the disambiguation page A Day at the Races, so that page now contains a link to a redirect to itself (which I'll fix momentarily). In future, when you change the article to which a title redirects, you should also check whether you are affecting any incoming links from other pages. Thank you. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting jeff popa? He has been a Canton resident since 1991 and contributed to this community since then. Dont you think that merits notoriety over someone who moved into Canton that plays a professional sport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffpopa ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lindsey: I would respectfully disagree with you that the early Earls of Clare were not actual Earls, but rather they, in your words, "called themselves the Earls of Clare".
I believe the later Earls have documents which the early Earls did not have or that, more likely, its "medieval equivalent did not survive".
But "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Carl Sagan The early Earls of Clare are mentioned in medieval chronicles in more than one place. These chroniclers were some of the most educated men in their day.
The Chronicler Gerald of Wales was a clerk to Henry II. I do not think he would make such a mistake and it not be corrected. Yet, to date, I have not found such a correction by this Chronicler or any other.
If one had to weigh the statements, I think there is more reason to believe that the early Earls were, in fact, appointed by at least one King.
Also, I re-checked and have quoted the texts correctly as they were spelled. It would be improper for me to quote a text and not quote it exactly as it appeared on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.194.228 ( talk) 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just created a discussion page, (I hope I have done so correctly).-- Mugginsx ( talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am learning to use the web and Wikipedia as I go along. I apologize for not signing my statements. At this time, I do not know how to accomplish that. I am still somewhat of an internet illiterate.
With respect, mugginsx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.194.228 ( talk) 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lindsey: I fear I did not make myself clear in my response to you for which I again apologize. I believe that the "Early Clares" were actually Earls of Clares in addition to the other titles they possessed and for which they were certainly better known. I believe that the Dictionary of National Biography specifically cites that they were not just "styled earls of clare". I do, however, agree that to date, there is no specific proof, but only indirectly indicated. I thank you for your response and I will pursue my research in that direction and we will respectfully agree to disagree on that point. I hope too, that I am getting better in the editing department and thank you also for your insight in that direction.
Mugginsx (
talk)
22:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Since I have added much text to this page, it may confuse the "misinformation" added concerning "the later Earls of Clare". Since I am new to Wikipedia, I did not feel that I could edit their contributions, therefore I concentrated on the "early Earls of Clare". If you feel you can edit the "later Earls of Clare" to make the article more coherent and complete, by all means do so with my blessing. Mugginsx (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As to Marmaduke Percy's comment, (and your agreement to it) that "No matter what the salient points are about the family, they're certainly not made here. I will try to get to this at some point, but this is an important early Anglo-Norman family and this piece doesn't begin to explicate them" I would suggest that you make these points on the INDIVIDUAL sites of each "Earl of Clare". The Earl of Clare page is meant to give an overall view, in particular, of the older Earls. It would take volumes to explain each earl and their individual accomplishments and so I am sure that you can see the logic in adding to the their individual sites. Mugginsx (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Mugginsx (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
One final comment: Since you are not listed as an Administrator, it is my understanding that you cannot just "prune" or "edit" without good reason. I am sure that you would live up to the standards of Wikipedia as you would have others. Mugginsx ( talk) 16:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lindsey: If by "formatting" you mean to correct the spellings or punctuation, I have already explained that within the direct quotations I have spelled and/or punctuated exactly the way it is shown in said direct quote. I cannot change that because it would go against proper research and copying procedure. If you find any other spelling or punctuation in the general body of the work which is incorrect, then I would, of course, welcome your corrections. The work and research is itself completely accurate and has survived many academics throughout hundreds of years. I would not accept any deletion or change in that regard. I will also accept your advice and continue to study the Wikipedia sites on procedure, etc., that you have recommended as I have already been doing as time permits. 69.183.179.172 ( talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've followed your postings to the talk page, and had seen everything except for what you'd just added. I agree with everything you've said. You've also been very gracious to newcomers, who don't necessarily understand how the process works. For that I commend you. But I think there is some scalpel work required, removing anything that treads on copyright elsewhere (as you say), as well as putting in chronological order, and straightening out the matter of who was 'de Clare' and who were the Earls of Clare. You seem to have a good grasp of it all. Why don't you take a crack at it, and I'll have a look afterwards. Thanks for the message and take care. Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 06:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lindsay - as to Your latest message First of all, I apologize for misspelling your name. There is no excuse for it, I was a little miffed at the time, not so much at you but the other person who identifies him or herself as Marmaduke Percy. I became careless in my state of agitation, so truly, I am sorry about the misspelling of your name. As to the editing and shortening of the direct quotes, that is where I stated It would be improper research copying. Your are quite correct that the initial paragraph is still in copyright and I will remove it as soon as I can find and cite the same information in Uncopyrighted form. I have found most of it but it will take a little time to put it together and then to insert it.
Secondly: I know you still do not believe in these early Earls of Clare but, please research the chroniclers and try to evaluate THEIR competency (not mine or yours) as to who was and was not a proper Earl of Clare. Take, for instance the citations in The Chronicle of the Princes. Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Llywelyn the Great, Llywelyn Fawr, all the same person, was versed in several languages, was himself literate and composed many messages to the King of England and others himself and in his own hand. Further of course, you might reason that because he was given the illegitimate daughter of King John, at least he (King John) thought him intelligent as well as powerful. As cruel as he was to others, he was known to dote even on his illegimate daughter Joan. One cannot just dismiss these chronicles by saying, "Well, I do not think they were really Earls of Clare". This belief would tend to defy logic and a researcher must not only be an educated person but also a logical person in evaluating the words and motives of these chroniclers. I believe you to be both educated and logical, but if you require more proof than the contemporaneous chroniclers, I think you aim too high. I will try to obtain more proof but in the end, as you yourself has stated to someone else, (I will paraphrase you,) When you are dealing with something that occurred several hundred years ago, who really knows? I think the continued evidence and continuity must at some point allow one to make a leap of faith, otherwise how is ANY history really considered history? Also, a glimpse of the individual Clare websites show they are wrought with error.
Finally: As to to "highlighting" "linking" and styling changes - "knock your sock off" , Highlight! Link! and by all means"Style! make it prettier by all means! I trust you to do far better than I in that regard Mugginsx ( talk) 17:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I read your most impressive information site and just wanted to say that I have been a Baptist for thirty years, since I started watching Dr. Charles Stanley. He has made my life very happy through his teachings and I have regarded him as my most valued pastor/teacher. Mugginsx ( talk) 00:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your vacation plans. Yes, I've never been involved in an edit war either. Normally folks are pretty amenable. I've rarely seen a situation like this one. The page was protected in the original state after you left. Then Muggles showed up and began reinserting his nonsensical claims again. Now he claims I don't understand research. I probably add more footnotes per square inch than 99 percent of editors, as that's my background. I find this individual quite maddening, and impossible to work with. You can read over what he's said. Most of it is nonsense. Regards, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mugginsx. I trust you'll accept me writing on this page; i'd e-mail you if you had it activated, then this wouldn't have to be in public view.
I'm writing to say that i'm glad the Clare affair has been sorted out; it seems that one or two people were able to offer some insight, and you were willing to accept another view ~ coöperation and consensus, that's the Wikipedia way, as you know. The article looks quite good now; i'm pleased to see it as i'm back from my holiday.
I do hope that you'll understand, however, when i say i was hurt or offended by some of the things you wrote about me during the course of the dispute, and i do feel that you owe me (and Marmaduke) an apology. Each of these numbers following, in case you don't know this, can be clicked on like a wlink in the articles, to see what i'm referring to: Let me give you a few examples of what i find hurtful, untrue, or offensive... [2] (“vandals or trolls”), [3] (“Please do not comment to me about good faith. You do not know the meaning of the word”), [4] (“casual dismissal”). I have to tell you that from the first interaction i had with you i acted in nothing but good faith, and assumed that you were doing the same; my goal was (and is) to improve Wikipedia, i assumed yours was the same; i had no ulterior motive or agenda, and assumed you didn't either. Now, i am willing to retain these assumptions, if you can assure me you have good faith and are prepared to work with others, even those with whom you disagree. I'll even offer to help you find your way around the (admittedly sometimes) hard to work out WP etiquette and editing techniques, if you would like help. So, after a rather rough start, can we be friends ~ or at least coöperating editors? Cheers, LindsayHi 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Lindsay: Do you know anything about Richard de Clare, Steward of the Forest? I cannot find anything anywhere about him. I thought that, as you indicated in your user page that you live in Wales, you could perhaps find some information on him not easily obtained in the US.. Mugginsx ( talk) 12:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you have found some information on Richard, Steward of the Forest. Wonderful. I mean that. Hey, have you looked at the Internet Archives Website under The historical works of Giraldus Cambrensis - Giraldus, Cambrensis, 1146?-1223? It has fascinating details on the death of Richard fitz Gilbert. Too long and detailed for the article, but fascinating to read nonetheless. Brian fitz Count is an interesting fellow as well. No angel there.
Mugginsx (
talk)
10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I had been intending to create an article on Thomas for ages, but kept getting side-tracked; therefore it came as a pleasant surprise to find that you had created it this morning. He was quite a character. It's never been properly explained why he ordered the execution of his former ally Brian Ruad.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on the list! When disambiguating, however, please avoid (porn actor); (actor) is usually sufficient unless there already is an actor article in which case (pornographic actor) is preferred. -- Banjeboi 08:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I have already complained to Peterkingiron since you seem again to be following me around to edit things that no one else has edited. Your only source seems always to be the Clare webpage which contradicts other Clare webpages. The paragraph you deleted had no foundation in your reason for deleting it. It further detailed an important event and was propertly source. Since I know you are following me around and playing your game again, I went immediately to Peterkingiron which, if you studied his dispute resolution, you would find that he defends Gerald of Wales, my source. This is not a game, and in following me around and editing everything I do, even editing this same medieval chronicler that Peteringiron defended, just because "you" don't like the wording, you may ultimately show a side of you which you try very hard to conceal to others. There can be no doubt that what you are doing to me is deliberate and not worthy of Wiki standards. Please stop this. Mugginsx ( talk) 20:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I started a section for those of us doing clean-up of the main bluelinks at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films#November 2009 - thread to ensure main bluelinks accurate. -- Banjeboi 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Lindsay, since we have been informed that we are talking about three different de Clares, do you think that the sentence you restored should be in a different paragraph? I am not sure since I do not have the most recent DNB access. Do what you think best. Mugginsx ( talk) 15:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Society Barnstar | |
I hereby award you this Society Barnstar for your help in cleaning up List of male performers in gay porn films which helps advance the general understanding of the given society of these performers. When others offered less than inspirational criticism you instead acted and helped clean-up a topic that needed help. -- Banjeboi 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC) |
This article is meets WP:Notability because he is a former professional tennis player, which the information is scant about him online, but here is the links that I compiled. You can use these to make the article better if you would like...
Thanks,
BLUE
DOG
TN
10:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok Lindsay, I guess I am supposed to believe the other 650 some articles you have worked or are working on brought you right back to me again. LEAVE BALDWIN'S NAME ALONE. If anyone find the name confusing, let me assure you it is ONLY YOU. However, in the spirit of Christmas, to please you, I also put in an "also known as" fitz Gilbert. I did appreciate that you linked it properly. I am afraid I inadvertently replaced it with a red link. Lindsay, I know you BELIEVE that you are THE expert on the Clare Family, unfortunately, you are not, nor am I. If you were you would have contributed to the many other Clare articles still listed as "stubs". Oh, that's right you did try on one and "the other Boleyn girl - Jeanne" filled the rest up within hours. Incidentally, it is NOT correct to link the fitz with the Gilbert - as in fitzGilbert - they were two different words at that time and not yet anglicized as the French and English editors will both assure you, if not everybody else. God, I always thought Dickens made up Scrooge but I guess I was wrong about that too. It is times like this I wish I could have a holiday drink and toast you, but, of course, Baptist (my sect anyway) do not drink. Happy Holidays.
I re-arranged de Clare introductory paragraphs without changing anyone's text. I think you will agree with me that it was beginning to look like a chid's primer. It could use some headings? Maybe you woould accomodate? My hand tremor is rather severe today. Mugginsx ( talk) 10:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Another day has past and I have put in some headings to de Clare. Mugginsx ( talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
MarmadukePercy (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I didn't mean vandalize I just wanted to use a valid fact, as a nifty joke on my friend's birthday The post was Rock Star Basem Farahat's Proudness.
Basem Farahat is the vocalist and keyboardist for a band named "Odious" And he is proud to be 30.
I understand that this is not totally ok
Cheers Alex Seif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexseif( talk • contribs) 13:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. As you are knowledgeable about this family, I thought you might want to weigh in here: the discussion page. Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 09:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() |
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: |
|
![]() | This page 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. |
I am replying to your question, as to his date of birth. How certin can one be about someone that lived over 500 years ago, the changes made were done according to the information contained in The Royal Ancestry Bible Royal ancestors of 300 Ameircan Families By Michel L. Call ISBN 1-933194-22-7 (chart 1696). Thanks Dthem 2000 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Moved from Userpage Lindsay 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Funny coincidence! But yes, it's mostly a local thing. You wouldn't have heard of it unless you'd lived in the area. VanTucky Talk 19:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good edits imo - the line that "It is also considered unfit for Christ to have had siblings." only arrived a few days ago, and I only tagged it for 'citation needed' as I thought it an interesting comment that might be sourced somewhere - but nothign has turned up. Springnuts ( talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"Removing warnings from your talk page is often considered vandalism." I didn't know that. Thanks. 70.101.182.149 ( talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
He is an animal..:) Igor Berger ( talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello LindsayH.
I noticed that you revert
vandalism. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world!
However, I have noticed that you do not always leave warnings on the users talk pages. You should always leave an appropriate warning after reverting vandalism. (The full list of talk page warnings may be found
here, along with some suggestions and guidelines for using them.)
Be sure to leave the correct level of warning, and if the user has been warned four times in the last month, (Check the users talk page history. Some users remove warnings from their talk pages.) report by going to
this page and following the instructions.
Thank you again, and may vandalism fail.
Ultra! 19:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ultra!
19:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
please look into your reporting before doing so, if you looked at the history i was the one that created the page and then deleted it, and i am now aware on how to actually move the page the correct way (currently in process) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.166.139 ( talk) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I just dont like the Rangers so i put that in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.187.3 ( talk) 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to Dalit Advisai descent which is false. In fact, it is vandalism bordering on libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.144.7 ( talk) 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
HI Linday I noticed you reverted me. Badgering aside, the idea of the project proposed is not to create a gazillion sub stubs. Part of it is to set up a coordinated project revolving around FritzBot to clean up all existing settlement articles by country before new content is generated. So the title of the oppostion isn't an accurate statement. Really it should be just for those who oppose the whole idea not just genrating new content as that was what the old proposal was about ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Mmm I see what you are saying. but there is more to the idea than what it implies thats all. As I said, it should just be oppostion to bots generating or editing existing articles in general not just creating them en masse. Anyway, on a different note I created the article on Ar Rifa` earlier which the bot would have started from the missing list. There are many thousands of places with a population around 100,000 missing from wikipedia thats all. But I respect your view and have tried not to "badger" people this time. I only seemed to hassle people before because they had misinterpreted the proposal. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your revert, but the information I provided is definitely worth including. This has recently become a big news story since the Prime Minister apologized for the treatment of Native American children. I would also be confident in saying that Scott is notorious for his actions in this, but I'll lighten up on such descriptions if you really feel it's necessary. Cale ( talk) 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I must confess I edited it in a hurry. But there is no issue in stating that Robert the Bruce was a descendant of Henry Beauclerc.
haha yes you are completely correct..if we go back far enough we are all related. i just was not sure if people knew that robert the bruce was also a descendant of william the conqueror just like his arch enemy edward I...I thought it would be an interesting trivia fact on Robert the Bruce as wikipedia sometimes has trivia information on the various biographies of notable people.
Robert the Bruce was also a descendant of Alfred the great, charlemagne, brian boruma, alfred the great,and a host of other royals. not to mention he is a descendants of the "first" king of scotland kenneth macalpin.
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot ( talk) 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought you would be amused to know that Karl Barth, like most German intellectuals used latin script when writing by hand rather than the gothic handwriting favoured by the Nazis. He thus avoided all those unusual characters favoured by Kelisi. How paradoxical that Kelisi in his enthusiasm to attack Nazis has become besotted by the very characters that were their hallmark! Any native German speaker happily uses an "e" in place of an umlaut, becuase they recognise the umlaut as a printers device. I would be interested to know whether Martin Luther's printed Bible used umlauts. Although you are probably aware that ye was used by early English printers, who used "y" rather than "th". Heaven forbid that Kelisi should discover this and start replacing every "th" in Wikipedia with "y" Fred20x ( talk) 15:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I rather thought you might. Trouble is that I fail to see how they can possibly claim a figure from the Catholic church so many centuries before Anglicanism was even invented? Unless they are claiming some form of patriarchal descent, in which case that shows a shocking lack of understanding on their parts as to how Anglicanism was born. Oh well... I've got no desire to argue the point! Aula TPN 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello there,Hope your'e doing well.I think you missunderstood one of my edits when added Henry VI entry as Henry VI of England and France.By this entry I mean bieng also King of France not as you understood it as meaning Henry VI of France.I should have adjusted the entry a bit.I meant it as bieng "Henri II of France" not Henry VI of France and England.Apologies.Anyway if you are intrested in releated subjects concerning Henry VI(Henri II of France) and the Dual-Monarchy you should check out my article.Here is the link. The Dual-Monarchy of England and France.Goodbye. -- HENRY V OF ENGLAND ( talk) 05:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this was just an oversight, but when you moved Day at the Races to A Day at the Races (video), and then redirected the old title to the disambiguation page, you didn't change any of the other articles that linked to the old title; in particular, you didn't change the disambiguation page A Day at the Races, so that page now contains a link to a redirect to itself (which I'll fix momentarily). In future, when you change the article to which a title redirects, you should also check whether you are affecting any incoming links from other pages. Thank you. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting jeff popa? He has been a Canton resident since 1991 and contributed to this community since then. Dont you think that merits notoriety over someone who moved into Canton that plays a professional sport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffpopa ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lindsey: I would respectfully disagree with you that the early Earls of Clare were not actual Earls, but rather they, in your words, "called themselves the Earls of Clare".
I believe the later Earls have documents which the early Earls did not have or that, more likely, its "medieval equivalent did not survive".
But "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Carl Sagan The early Earls of Clare are mentioned in medieval chronicles in more than one place. These chroniclers were some of the most educated men in their day.
The Chronicler Gerald of Wales was a clerk to Henry II. I do not think he would make such a mistake and it not be corrected. Yet, to date, I have not found such a correction by this Chronicler or any other.
If one had to weigh the statements, I think there is more reason to believe that the early Earls were, in fact, appointed by at least one King.
Also, I re-checked and have quoted the texts correctly as they were spelled. It would be improper for me to quote a text and not quote it exactly as it appeared on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.194.228 ( talk) 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I have just created a discussion page, (I hope I have done so correctly).-- Mugginsx ( talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am learning to use the web and Wikipedia as I go along. I apologize for not signing my statements. At this time, I do not know how to accomplish that. I am still somewhat of an internet illiterate.
With respect, mugginsx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.194.228 ( talk) 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lindsey: I fear I did not make myself clear in my response to you for which I again apologize. I believe that the "Early Clares" were actually Earls of Clares in addition to the other titles they possessed and for which they were certainly better known. I believe that the Dictionary of National Biography specifically cites that they were not just "styled earls of clare". I do, however, agree that to date, there is no specific proof, but only indirectly indicated. I thank you for your response and I will pursue my research in that direction and we will respectfully agree to disagree on that point. I hope too, that I am getting better in the editing department and thank you also for your insight in that direction.
Mugginsx (
talk)
22:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Since I have added much text to this page, it may confuse the "misinformation" added concerning "the later Earls of Clare". Since I am new to Wikipedia, I did not feel that I could edit their contributions, therefore I concentrated on the "early Earls of Clare". If you feel you can edit the "later Earls of Clare" to make the article more coherent and complete, by all means do so with my blessing. Mugginsx (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As to Marmaduke Percy's comment, (and your agreement to it) that "No matter what the salient points are about the family, they're certainly not made here. I will try to get to this at some point, but this is an important early Anglo-Norman family and this piece doesn't begin to explicate them" I would suggest that you make these points on the INDIVIDUAL sites of each "Earl of Clare". The Earl of Clare page is meant to give an overall view, in particular, of the older Earls. It would take volumes to explain each earl and their individual accomplishments and so I am sure that you can see the logic in adding to the their individual sites. Mugginsx (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Mugginsx (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
One final comment: Since you are not listed as an Administrator, it is my understanding that you cannot just "prune" or "edit" without good reason. I am sure that you would live up to the standards of Wikipedia as you would have others. Mugginsx ( talk) 16:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lindsey: If by "formatting" you mean to correct the spellings or punctuation, I have already explained that within the direct quotations I have spelled and/or punctuated exactly the way it is shown in said direct quote. I cannot change that because it would go against proper research and copying procedure. If you find any other spelling or punctuation in the general body of the work which is incorrect, then I would, of course, welcome your corrections. The work and research is itself completely accurate and has survived many academics throughout hundreds of years. I would not accept any deletion or change in that regard. I will also accept your advice and continue to study the Wikipedia sites on procedure, etc., that you have recommended as I have already been doing as time permits. 69.183.179.172 ( talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I've followed your postings to the talk page, and had seen everything except for what you'd just added. I agree with everything you've said. You've also been very gracious to newcomers, who don't necessarily understand how the process works. For that I commend you. But I think there is some scalpel work required, removing anything that treads on copyright elsewhere (as you say), as well as putting in chronological order, and straightening out the matter of who was 'de Clare' and who were the Earls of Clare. You seem to have a good grasp of it all. Why don't you take a crack at it, and I'll have a look afterwards. Thanks for the message and take care. Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 06:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lindsay - as to Your latest message First of all, I apologize for misspelling your name. There is no excuse for it, I was a little miffed at the time, not so much at you but the other person who identifies him or herself as Marmaduke Percy. I became careless in my state of agitation, so truly, I am sorry about the misspelling of your name. As to the editing and shortening of the direct quotes, that is where I stated It would be improper research copying. Your are quite correct that the initial paragraph is still in copyright and I will remove it as soon as I can find and cite the same information in Uncopyrighted form. I have found most of it but it will take a little time to put it together and then to insert it.
Secondly: I know you still do not believe in these early Earls of Clare but, please research the chroniclers and try to evaluate THEIR competency (not mine or yours) as to who was and was not a proper Earl of Clare. Take, for instance the citations in The Chronicle of the Princes. Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Llywelyn the Great, Llywelyn Fawr, all the same person, was versed in several languages, was himself literate and composed many messages to the King of England and others himself and in his own hand. Further of course, you might reason that because he was given the illegitimate daughter of King John, at least he (King John) thought him intelligent as well as powerful. As cruel as he was to others, he was known to dote even on his illegimate daughter Joan. One cannot just dismiss these chronicles by saying, "Well, I do not think they were really Earls of Clare". This belief would tend to defy logic and a researcher must not only be an educated person but also a logical person in evaluating the words and motives of these chroniclers. I believe you to be both educated and logical, but if you require more proof than the contemporaneous chroniclers, I think you aim too high. I will try to obtain more proof but in the end, as you yourself has stated to someone else, (I will paraphrase you,) When you are dealing with something that occurred several hundred years ago, who really knows? I think the continued evidence and continuity must at some point allow one to make a leap of faith, otherwise how is ANY history really considered history? Also, a glimpse of the individual Clare websites show they are wrought with error.
Finally: As to to "highlighting" "linking" and styling changes - "knock your sock off" , Highlight! Link! and by all means"Style! make it prettier by all means! I trust you to do far better than I in that regard Mugginsx ( talk) 17:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I read your most impressive information site and just wanted to say that I have been a Baptist for thirty years, since I started watching Dr. Charles Stanley. He has made my life very happy through his teachings and I have regarded him as my most valued pastor/teacher. Mugginsx ( talk) 00:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your vacation plans. Yes, I've never been involved in an edit war either. Normally folks are pretty amenable. I've rarely seen a situation like this one. The page was protected in the original state after you left. Then Muggles showed up and began reinserting his nonsensical claims again. Now he claims I don't understand research. I probably add more footnotes per square inch than 99 percent of editors, as that's my background. I find this individual quite maddening, and impossible to work with. You can read over what he's said. Most of it is nonsense. Regards, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mugginsx. I trust you'll accept me writing on this page; i'd e-mail you if you had it activated, then this wouldn't have to be in public view.
I'm writing to say that i'm glad the Clare affair has been sorted out; it seems that one or two people were able to offer some insight, and you were willing to accept another view ~ coöperation and consensus, that's the Wikipedia way, as you know. The article looks quite good now; i'm pleased to see it as i'm back from my holiday.
I do hope that you'll understand, however, when i say i was hurt or offended by some of the things you wrote about me during the course of the dispute, and i do feel that you owe me (and Marmaduke) an apology. Each of these numbers following, in case you don't know this, can be clicked on like a wlink in the articles, to see what i'm referring to: Let me give you a few examples of what i find hurtful, untrue, or offensive... [2] (“vandals or trolls”), [3] (“Please do not comment to me about good faith. You do not know the meaning of the word”), [4] (“casual dismissal”). I have to tell you that from the first interaction i had with you i acted in nothing but good faith, and assumed that you were doing the same; my goal was (and is) to improve Wikipedia, i assumed yours was the same; i had no ulterior motive or agenda, and assumed you didn't either. Now, i am willing to retain these assumptions, if you can assure me you have good faith and are prepared to work with others, even those with whom you disagree. I'll even offer to help you find your way around the (admittedly sometimes) hard to work out WP etiquette and editing techniques, if you would like help. So, after a rather rough start, can we be friends ~ or at least coöperating editors? Cheers, LindsayHi 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Lindsay: Do you know anything about Richard de Clare, Steward of the Forest? I cannot find anything anywhere about him. I thought that, as you indicated in your user page that you live in Wales, you could perhaps find some information on him not easily obtained in the US.. Mugginsx ( talk) 12:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you have found some information on Richard, Steward of the Forest. Wonderful. I mean that. Hey, have you looked at the Internet Archives Website under The historical works of Giraldus Cambrensis - Giraldus, Cambrensis, 1146?-1223? It has fascinating details on the death of Richard fitz Gilbert. Too long and detailed for the article, but fascinating to read nonetheless. Brian fitz Count is an interesting fellow as well. No angel there.
Mugginsx (
talk)
10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I had been intending to create an article on Thomas for ages, but kept getting side-tracked; therefore it came as a pleasant surprise to find that you had created it this morning. He was quite a character. It's never been properly explained why he ordered the execution of his former ally Brian Ruad.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on the list! When disambiguating, however, please avoid (porn actor); (actor) is usually sufficient unless there already is an actor article in which case (pornographic actor) is preferred. -- Banjeboi 08:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I have already complained to Peterkingiron since you seem again to be following me around to edit things that no one else has edited. Your only source seems always to be the Clare webpage which contradicts other Clare webpages. The paragraph you deleted had no foundation in your reason for deleting it. It further detailed an important event and was propertly source. Since I know you are following me around and playing your game again, I went immediately to Peterkingiron which, if you studied his dispute resolution, you would find that he defends Gerald of Wales, my source. This is not a game, and in following me around and editing everything I do, even editing this same medieval chronicler that Peteringiron defended, just because "you" don't like the wording, you may ultimately show a side of you which you try very hard to conceal to others. There can be no doubt that what you are doing to me is deliberate and not worthy of Wiki standards. Please stop this. Mugginsx ( talk) 20:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I started a section for those of us doing clean-up of the main bluelinks at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films#November 2009 - thread to ensure main bluelinks accurate. -- Banjeboi 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Lindsay, since we have been informed that we are talking about three different de Clares, do you think that the sentence you restored should be in a different paragraph? I am not sure since I do not have the most recent DNB access. Do what you think best. Mugginsx ( talk) 15:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Society Barnstar | |
I hereby award you this Society Barnstar for your help in cleaning up List of male performers in gay porn films which helps advance the general understanding of the given society of these performers. When others offered less than inspirational criticism you instead acted and helped clean-up a topic that needed help. -- Banjeboi 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC) |
This article is meets WP:Notability because he is a former professional tennis player, which the information is scant about him online, but here is the links that I compiled. You can use these to make the article better if you would like...
Thanks,
BLUE
DOG
TN
10:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ok Lindsay, I guess I am supposed to believe the other 650 some articles you have worked or are working on brought you right back to me again. LEAVE BALDWIN'S NAME ALONE. If anyone find the name confusing, let me assure you it is ONLY YOU. However, in the spirit of Christmas, to please you, I also put in an "also known as" fitz Gilbert. I did appreciate that you linked it properly. I am afraid I inadvertently replaced it with a red link. Lindsay, I know you BELIEVE that you are THE expert on the Clare Family, unfortunately, you are not, nor am I. If you were you would have contributed to the many other Clare articles still listed as "stubs". Oh, that's right you did try on one and "the other Boleyn girl - Jeanne" filled the rest up within hours. Incidentally, it is NOT correct to link the fitz with the Gilbert - as in fitzGilbert - they were two different words at that time and not yet anglicized as the French and English editors will both assure you, if not everybody else. God, I always thought Dickens made up Scrooge but I guess I was wrong about that too. It is times like this I wish I could have a holiday drink and toast you, but, of course, Baptist (my sect anyway) do not drink. Happy Holidays.
I re-arranged de Clare introductory paragraphs without changing anyone's text. I think you will agree with me that it was beginning to look like a chid's primer. It could use some headings? Maybe you woould accomodate? My hand tremor is rather severe today. Mugginsx ( talk) 10:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Another day has past and I have put in some headings to de Clare. Mugginsx ( talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
MarmadukePercy (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I didn't mean vandalize I just wanted to use a valid fact, as a nifty joke on my friend's birthday The post was Rock Star Basem Farahat's Proudness.
Basem Farahat is the vocalist and keyboardist for a band named "Odious" And he is proud to be 30.
I understand that this is not totally ok
Cheers Alex Seif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexseif( talk • contribs) 13:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. As you are knowledgeable about this family, I thought you might want to weigh in here: the discussion page. Best, MarmadukePercy ( talk) 09:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() |
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because
you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by
the process outlined at
Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated
endearing title: |
|