This is an archive of past discussions with User:Charles Matthews. 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.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mootros (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi, I was writing an article on a place in Yunnan and this was red linked so I started it. Not sure if you know anything about it, but being a Cambridge man yourself I wondered if you could verify or expand it.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The same guy?
Hi there, I recently stumbled onto these two articles, García de Loaisa and García de Loaysa, the former of which you created. They look remarkably similar and I'm fairly sure they're the same person. If so, obviously one needs to be redirected to the other and the contents of the two articles merged. So, just wondering if you could confirm that they are the same person and, if so, which would be the correct title? Jenks24 (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've merged the content to García de Loaysa, leaving García de Loaisa as a redirect. If you could take a quick look at García de Loaysa just to make sure there is nothing that looks completely wrong, it would be appreciated, because Spanish bishops are a long way from my area of expertise. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Charles, could you help me out with moving the article on Konrad Pellikan. See Talk:Conrad Pellicanus. I have been trying for a few months here with little cooperation from our fellow wikipedists. Very little with Pellikan's name in the title in English has been published in recent decades. However, mentions of Pellikan in secondary works on the Swiss Reformation fairly uniformly opt for "Konrad Pellikan" (the normal German name) or the Anglicized "Conrad Pellikan" or "Conrad Pellican." There is no justification for keeping the Latinate "Conrad Pellicanus." Gamonetus (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Wase
Ah!
It's always nice when someone finds one of your articles interesting enough to greatly expand it.
I don't think it's a good idea to repeat material in different places on the site, though. Please use "see also" links, or {{details}} links, or some other method, rather than copying text around. It doesn't help Wikipedia's mission to have the same facts in several different places. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been helping Manorial with the Bowland stuff. I notice you have removed a sentence that that been a minor irritation for a while, mainly because it is repeated so often. I’ve been thinking of replacing it with a navbox of some description. Do you have an opinion?
On the Bowland material, it is in line with the general approach here to centralise and link, rather than duplicate. So my intention is to see what specifics need to be in particular places. I'm going to work on it a bit, as I get more familiar with the stuff, rather than try to do it all in a rush. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
s:Towneley, Charles (DNB00) is there on Wikisource and there are three other Towneley articles there (click the "next" links or on the volume link) after which it is Townley. By all means use the DNB material here on WP: that is what WP:WP DNB is all about. The adaptation is sometimes arduous until you're familiar with DNB prose and conventions, can fill in wikilinks from context, know what stuff is best just cut out, etc. I'm meaning to write up a proper manual for adapters. But in any case the main thing is to use {{cite DNB}} and {{DNB}} as appropriate (citation and attribution). Charles Matthews (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Shakespearean authorship
How is it that someone so senior in the Wiki meritocracy (I've been reading talk pages and a BBC item on Wiki meeting at Imperial College) would step in to adjust links for a newbie's biography article? However this came about, it's appreciated. Certainly is inspiring. Ta. JaneFaber (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiGnome. I know Dsp13, who lives in Cambridge also, and watch his User talk page. Some of the linking from references is a little tricky, for example inserting authorlink fields in citation templates. Anyway, you're welcome. We try to be on best behaviour around those new to the site. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Shusaku number
Hi Charles. Thanks you for your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Go#Shusaku_Number.
Since you commented, there have been some developments: the article's been reinstated, put to AfD, expanded, and a reference to a RS added.
I wonder if you'd mind reading the AfD comments, and whether you'd care to add your own feelings there? It would be interesting to read your view re the authenticity of EuroGoTV (which I've seen in action at 1 or 2 EGCs). Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. My current view is that if there is sensible mention somewhere, the concept can be mentioned in the article on Shusaku, and a redirect legitimately created. I'm actually more interested in the question "why Shusaku?" Anyway, thanks for your efforts. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Here it seems that Epeefleche is aiming to turn the RfC into a process for delivering sanctions. You might also like to review the latest section of the talk page. The whole thing is becoming quite nasty, and PBS can hardly be blamed for that. I really think those looking for blood should be told to go straight to Arbcom. That is surely the proper channel for their aims. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, quite nasty. I did comment there (i.e. that ArbCom was the place for those asking for a desysop). I happen to think that sanction irrelevant: it would have no effect on the underlying dispute, and does nothing to stop the whole thing happening again. My initial view is that mediation was the correct approach; but I don't see much prospect of that occurring, given what we have heard so far. I'd certainly like to see some actual dispute resolution. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of polygons, polyhedra and polytopes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Charles Matthews. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
A tag has been placed on Three for a pig, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
This article is just a manual for how to play the game
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I was delighted to see that you had contributed to the article. I updated the article, but my copy of the "Rebel in Defense of Tradition" biography was left behind in the USA, and I am certain that your efforts would help.
Hi Charles, I found this name on your user-subpage "Scholastics" in red colour and I like to inform you that since some days there exists a small article in de:wikipedia under w:de:Bartholomäus von Salerno. Best regards, --Fredou (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have actually expressed views on the wikien-l mailing list. My analysis is that existing guidelines and discussion should be able to resolve the points at issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple of things: it would be more conventional to post the ballad on Wikisource, which is designed for such things, and provide just a link and extract. Also the DNB prose is full of Victorian turns of phrase, and they now leap out at me. "The French king" is periphrastic - was Louis XV. There are usually words that don't need to be there: "ardent Roman catholics" doesn't need "ardent" in this context. The whole para
"Due to the hardships this placed on his family, Francis went over to France in 1728, and found powerful friends there, who quickly obtained for him a commission in the service of the French king. At the Siege of Philippsburg in 1733, under the Duke of Berwick, he distinguished himself by his daring, and in subsequent campaigns showed himself an accomplished soldier."
could be replaced by the less verbose, more factual
Thanks for your advice, I’ve done a bit more with it. I’ve not done anything with uploading to Wikisource yet and after a quick look the upload link doesn’t seem obvious, so for now I’ve removed the ballad. If you think it is worth putting on there, can you either give me some pointers or preferably do it for me? (Cheeky, I know) Ballads and songs of Lancashire chiefly older than the 19th century p.104-05. Alternatively I could just add it as a further reading link? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I’ve added a bit more to the article and moved it to Francis Towneley, I’ll get some links to it sorted shortly and try to learn from any edits you make. I plan to go for his brother John next, as there is already a John Towneley, I was thinking John Towneley, Chevalier. Any objections? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Prof. Matthews. I'm writing you since nearly a week ago, user Set theorist (talk) proposed the merging of the entry "Hartogs' lemma" into the entry "Hartogs' extension theorem" to which I contribute on a more or less regular basis (or I plan to do so, :D ). I would like know if you are against the merging proposal: as a matter of fact, I have produced evidence that the two entries talk about the same topic, and I have started collecting many references in order to start the merge. If you want to answer me or if you have any complaint, please discuss it with me in the talk page. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll proceed as soon as possible. I'll try to improve also the exposition: I wrote the historical section long ago, and now my skills as a translator and writer in English are improved. :D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Hello Charles, from the MRC wiki academy workshop.
Two answers: I have just created the page, as you can see. Also, redlinks are a useful addition to Wikipedia, unless there is a good reason that such an article should never be created. As it says on Wikipedia:Red link: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished". Have a look at that guideline if you need more. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
And from me to- very useful to be able to come to the MRC wiki meeting and thanks for looking at my article- David Edwards—Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC).
Anything on Azor (landowner)? I've been getting public domain texts on Category:Houses on the Isle of Wight onto here and have found several hundreds which can be started and a lot of them mention this great landowner who was also mentioned along with his sons in the Domesday Book. You'll also be seeing DNB entries again from me in the coming weeks. I stopped previously as I thought a bot was going to create them.
It looks somewhat tricky to me, since Azor turns out to be a common name of the time. I see quite a lot in a search for Fitzazor. There was an Azor who was a court official of Edward the Confesssor; but the names of the sons suggest this Azor was a Norman (not completely ruled out under Edward the Confessor, but bears thinking about). I think this is not "Azor son of Toti" who comes up ... can't be sure, name of the father would be very useful.
Rich F.'s bot is still being trained, but the results anyway still need cleanup. There is plenty of DNB cleanup to do right now - see comments at the end of WT:WP DNB. It is easy to find tagged articles using a tool, and I'm working to reduce the number of long unwikified articles right now. It is all going pretty well in terms of redlinks made that can be then filled in with more DNB - I always throw up more leads than I can follow at the time. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Its puzzled me on numerous occasions why there is no Category:English landowners. A landowner is a major figure in British history it should be jammed full with articles. Unless i missing the cat under a different name like Category:Feudal lords or something? In fact this is a category area which should be so full we should even have e.g Category:14th-century feudal lords etc. Either way I think we should create this category and aim to fill it. Any thoughts? Either way I think we should create this category and aim to fill it.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe for the earlier medieval times the right thing is to identify lords of manors? There is a lot of antiquarian data on "manorial descents", so this is verifiable (with luck). Historians now use the term "magnate" for the major estate holders of the later middle ages - really rather a different thing. The interest is going to be in subcategories, I think. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I created an English landowners category and it was put up for deletion at here. Please comment at this CFD for whether or not you support these categories. It is not meant for anybody who ever owned a plot of land but the traditional wealthy landowners in British history at a time when "Landowner" was their main source of power and esteem. Feudal lords are most certainly notable in my view. ♦ Dr. Blofeld07:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Pokerstars group
Hi Charles,
Do you think there would be any sense in creating a "home game" group on pokerstars for wikipedians? Particularly if someone like you with plenty of wiki-prestige did it I think it could work... or maybe it would be a complete waste of time. Thoughts?
On 16 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Octagon Chapel, Liverpool, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the nonconformist liturgy of the Octagon Chapel(pictured) in Liverpool, UK, was criticized by Job Orton: "Grieved I am ... to see such an almost deistical composition"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I'm contacting you because I know you were involved in a dispute on the Johann Hari page a while back. I have a history of editing and contributing to discussion about this page, and while I've not previously been directly involved in heavy edit wars and I've not had previous contact with you about it, its one of only two Wikipedia pages I take an active interest in.
You are probably aware of Johann Hari's recent woes, most likely because of renewed enquiries in the press into the identity of David Rose who was an editor of that page. In short, there have been renewed accusations of sockpuppetry by Johann Hari himself. I have nothing to say about this as its clearly being taken seriously by both the media and Wikipedia. However, when the current allegations about Hari broke in the press, I returned to the page and noticed that someone had linked these allegations in a very leading way to a problematic article written in Private Eye some years ago that made quite separate allegations about Hari. You will probably remember this, as you stated the view that this was not a particularly reliable source for a BLP, particularly one that had been as contentious and vandalized as Hari's. I thought it was appropriate to remove this citation, and did so with reference to previous discussion on the Hari Talk-page.
The consequence of my removing a probable BLP-violation from a page with a troubled history is that I have now drawn accusations of being a sockpuppet for David Rose, on Wikipedia and elsewhere in the blogosphere ("He's deleting Private eye links and generally doing a David Rose type job on Hari's article talk page. Interesting.Once a sockmaster, always a sockmaster, eh?". http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-is-david-rose.html).
Further edits I made on the page (in a section called "Secularism and Atheism") were challenged by a user called Yonmie, who wrote me a message on my talk page to the effect that my contribution history suggested I was a possible sockpuppet for David R. This message claimed to be "friendly advice" that it would be "sensible" for me to stop editing the page as a neutral reader would find my contribution history to the page suspicious. Not that he was saying I was David Rose, you understand, but that "it doesn't look good". Now that may or may not be the case, that it "doesn't look good". But the truth is I am not David Rose, and in fact I have a proven record of both supporting *and* challenging "David R"'s suggestions for edits. Yonmie has continued to not engage substantially my counter-evidence to his suspicions, and he continued to challenge edits I had made which were robust, notable, well sourced and verifiable (another user has come on board the talk page to support my claim for notability). He has also repeatedly suggested I am not a terribly experienced user (which is arguably true), but refuses to engage my robust citation of chapter in verse of the Wiki rules. The edit was little more than this: "In February 2009, Hari wrote an article arguing for freedom of speech to extend to the right to criticise religion". This is a well sourced and accurate description of an article, and passes WP: NOTE. Yonmei seems to think that the controversy the article caused is notable, but my brief description of what the article *actually argued* is unneccessary and not notable. Another user, Felix-Felix, has argued that this edit is hagiographic, and reverted it. But you've come across him before.
On top of all that, Yonmei has implicated my account in a national scandal on another blog.
Now, I actually think Yonmei may have sincere suspicions about my account. And I do concede that occasionally on our talk pages I have got somewhat heated, and I have apologised for that. But surely I'm entitled to defend myself against accusations of being a sockpuppet? And surely I'm entitled to make accurate, good faith edits despite his suspicions? I feel like I'm being silenced, and in fact I have decided to stop editing the article for a while (this may be a good idea for all sorts of reasons), partly because its exhausting and partly because I'm potentially open to media scrutiny. He seems unwilling to address my counter-evidence to his suspicions, and unwilling to make any compromises on the edits I've proposed (on the Hari talk page, I've conceded to him when he has made good arguments). He says he's assuming my edits are in good faith (despite his "strong suspicions"), but it seems to me he's acting like they're anything but. Zafio (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I am certainly aware of the general position with Johann Hari, and in fact posted to the general mailing list about that recently: http://www.mailrepository.com/wikien-l.lists.wikimedia.org/msg/3963278/ . BLP editing is the hardest kind there is, really. I'd suggest you take this very carefully. WP:NOTE relates to "notability", which in our jargon applies to topics, not to facts. I would agree that Private Eye is not a reliable source, since while they publish stuff which is correct they also publish stuff that has only a 50% chance of being correct. Don't discuss other editors in the way you are doing, would be my best advice to you right now. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Charles for that advice, I will heed it. Indeed, before I read your message I'd already posted some conciliatory words with Yonmei. I still think he should have been more receptive to my arguments that I'm not a sockpuppet. And I'm still baffled why he thinks my edit on Secularism/Atheism violates WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV. But I should have made much clearer in my remarks above that I don't think he has anything to do with BLP violations and the murky pre-history of the Hari page. Zafio (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, after what I thought were signs of cooperation and conciliation between myself and this user on our respective user talk pages, I've become convinced that this user either doesn't care or doesn't understand the seriousness and potential consequences of the allegations he has made about my account (although I repeat my belief that the user has no relationship to the history of BLP on Johann Hari). He has rebuffed or fudged virtually all my attempts to discuss this with him reasonably, and has not responded to any of my arguments that counter his unfounded suspicions. I have now decided to stop engaging with him. I've never had direct experience of this kind of behaviour before, and I recognise now I've made a significant mistake in trying to justify myself to him, here and elsewhere online. This has just made more exposed and further compromised my privacy. Is there anything I can practically do, other than lay low? Are there complaint procedures? Zafio (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
There are talk page guidelines and they are summarised at the top of Talk:Johann Hari. There is no particular reason for you to back away from editing here, if you comply with those. Do bear in mind that the best kind of comment on an article's talk page is one that attempts to improve the article, by explaining what you think needs to be done right now to the current version. Comments about other editors are in general unhelpful. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has much more detail. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The particular edit in question is not hugely significant. I've given on the Hari talk pages my arguments for its inclusion, and another editor has argued in broadly similar terms; another editor argues strongly against this. Thats not primarily my issue here, as I'm no longer contributing to that page, at least for the time being. My real concern is about insinuations of sockpuppetry that relate to a media scandal, and my concern that that puts my account in the line of unwanted scrutiny. There is, I suppose, a thin chance that my own real-life identity may come under scrutiny also, as there have been assiduous attempts on the blogosphere to trace David Rose's identity through IP address checks and internet searches. Now that a few editors and blog commenters associate my account with David Rose, I'm slightly concerned about this, though less so now I have slept on it. Still, I don't think my username particularly exposes my identity, but there is a chance someone may turn up something. Perhaps I'm worrying too much, and should wait to see if it blows over. Zafio (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Matters don't seem to be improving, I'm afraid. Last night, I removed from my User talk page a whole raft of comments from the editor with whom I have had an editorial dispute. I did so because these comments raised unfounded suspicions that I am sockpuppet, and also sought to dissuade me from editing Wikipedia. Sadly, Yonmei has reacted by posting a link to an older version of my user page, "for [their] own reference". I have written to this editor to explain why I removed these comments (which of course I'm entitled to do) and insisting that he or she desist in making any further allegations or insinuations about my account. Zafio (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to be clear that the reference to Zafio being connected to the sockpuppet issue was not made by me. I contacted Zafio to point out that the connection was being made, and that I felt that it would be sensible on that basis for him to temporarily refrain from editing the Johann Hari page, which suggestion he did not take well. His reaction, which I felt to be aggressive and needlessly personal, caused me considerable worry. I prefer discussions on Wikipedia, whether on User:Talk pages or Article:Talk pages to be brief and to stick closely to discussing the contents of the article only. Over the weekend I felt that Zafio was harassing me - a couple of times he left notes proposing we meet up in person - and when I looked at his edit history, which is relatively sparse and overwhelmingly on Talk pages, I felt that he needed a Wikipedia mentor, especially before setting out to edit controversial or tricky pages. Yonmei (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In this diff you are discussing the geographical location attached to an IP address. So I think you're wikilawyering on this. I'm not impressed: I have given you due warning now. As well as to others. As you can see above, I have asked User:Zafio to avoid interactions. If these various cautions and explanations of policy aren't enough to stop this bickering and infringement of the spirit of our policies, something else will happen. Enough said. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I did, and I'm sorry about that - I later removed those sections from my Talk page at Zafio's request. I'm entirely happy for you to intervene in this: I have been finding the interactions with Zafio increasingly exhausting and unpleasant, his repeated requests to meet with me in person unnerving, and overall I've found it extremely hard to maintain a good-faith approach. I am delighted that you have formally requested all of us to stop interacting with each other, and I hope that's an end of it. I hadn't wanted to call in an admin because I felt it was unfair to invoke administration on a newbie who clearly wasn't very used to Wikipedia, but I'm glad he did, because I hope that it can all now come to a peaceful close. Yonmei (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Palmquist until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ozob (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I would say that "said" is perfectly acceptable in that context, and when I looked at the guideline it seemed clear that "said" is preferred. It is a very small point, you know. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"Said" is obviously OK there, in fact. I'm not clear why you think so much effort to "win" this argument is justified. My advice is to leave this matter now. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You've identified the portrait correctly. "Joseph Henry Green, by Thomas Phillips RA (1770–1845),. Professor of Painting at the Royal Academy (1825–32). Oil on canvas; unsigned and undated." Google the string "Figure 1 Joseph Henry Green, by Thomas Phillips RA (1770–1845)" and click the Google view icon to see the page with the image and caption in the Journal of Medical Biography. (It's the second item on the search results for me.) - PKM (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
An otherwise fine editor is insisting that this paragraph, containing statements by the Jury Foreman, are not a BLP violation. I am a former paralegal and I think that they are not only a BLP violation but libelous. I maintain that even if all the statements are not used, the "linking" to the material containing the full statements is considered libelous. I have cited BLP violations and various websites and even a legal precident, though old, is still being used in today. The paragraph containing the Jury Foreman's quote is as follows:
The Jury Foreman expressed suspicion of both Casey and George Anthony. "When I had to sign off on the verdict, the sheet that was given to me – there was just a feeling of disgust that came over me knowing that my signature and [Casey Anthony's] signature were going to be on the same sheet," he said, but that there was also a suspicion of George Anthony that played a part in their deliberations. The foreman stated his work experience enabled him to read people and that George Anthony "had a very selective memory" which stayed with the jurors, emphasizing that the jury was frustrated by the motive, cause of death, and George Anthony. "That a mother would want to do something like that to her child just because she wanted to go out and party," he said. "We felt that the motive that the state provided was, in our eyes, was just kind of weak." Though all of the jurors found Casey Anthony's behavior in the wake of her daughter's death "disgusting" and otherwise inappropriate, the foreman said the jury did not factor that behavior into their verdict because it was not illegal. They initially took a vote on the murder count, which was 10-2 (two voting guilty), but after more than ten hours of deliberation, they decided the only charges they felt were proven were the four counts of lying to law enforcement.
Confusing. I think this refers to the Black Bull Hotel in a village beginning with b or the one in Peterbororough?♦ Dr. Blofeld22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice one. Its just I couldn't find an existing bull hotel in Cambridge although I found one in Peterborough and one named The Black Bull in some Cambridgeshire village. Given that google books picked up so many Bull Hotel Cambridge hits I gathered it was notable. Thankyou Charles, I will peruse the sources you suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld08:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Neither am I (except for Monmouthshire) - I just wondered if you were using a central source that had the information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
No indeed. So far I have mainly Googled around for likely titles. This is one of the projects growing out of my work on the Dictionary of National Biography in fact: there are so many antiquarians mentioned there who worked on such histories that it made sense to me to create some sort of overview page. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Charles Matthews. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Einheitspsychosen , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Charles Matthews. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
My general comment is that they read like chunks of mathematics textbooks. This is not the intended effect here, where the needs of the "general reader" need to be taken into account. Ordinary prose should be taking the strain, with less reliance on inline notation and bullet points. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thanks! I will try to think how to make it more accessible (I am proud
to say that the number of mathematical symbols decreased quite a bit after the
revision, but indeed one can probably do even better). Sasha (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.
Thanks for your effort at resolving the conflict between me and Mathsci, even if (from his reaction to your comment) it looks like it was unsuccessful.
I would like to point you to the offer I’m making here. This is what I’d really like: if Mathsci and I could both agree to leave each other alone from now on. I don’t know if there there’s anything you can do to make him more likely to agree to that, but I thought I should mention this to you just in case there is. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The reason I’m expecting that is because it’s what the arbitrators are expecting. Quoting Cool Hand Luke’s comment: “Under these circumstances, and given that Mathsci is a long-term contributor and presumably responsive to good-faith concerns, it might be best to leave the matter here without further action. Mathsci now has notice that some of the behavior is thought to be a problem. I hope that is enough.”
I mean, if I’m going to not expect that the issue can be resolved right now, then that basically means I have to assume that ArbCom is making the wrong decision here. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to go back a bit. I certainly don't go around looking for involvement in resolving tricky disputes; but once involved I don't duck anything, either. If you are looking to blame others here, we need to cover some ground.
What I'm going to say isn't anything very different from what you'd get from others with adequate experience of disputes here. If there is a difference it is that you can read it also on in a book: as co-author of How Wikipedia Works, I'm committed to particular versions. Anyway the point about "de-escalate" is covered: [1]. Google has taken a few pages out of that chapter, though.
But I think the general emphasis is right: reliance on formal processes is the last resort; you have to be calm and patient; informal mediation is the best way to sort things out. Disputes that are hard to resolve have causes; but the right way is to concentrate on your own approach, in particular in talk page discussion. Be eventualist if you want to change content. Getting things sorted out, in short, is not much to do with constraining others on the site. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there are a lot of details about this dispute that make this more difficult in my case than it is in most cases. I’ll start with the most important one:
I’m not allowed to request mediation, start an RFC/U, or bring up Mathsci’s behavior related to the R&I topic area anywhere other than at AE and in arbitration amendment threads. I’m not even supposed to bring it up with him in his user talk—my topic ban specifically disallows all of these things. Mathsci isn’t under any such restriction. So the way that this dispute tends to go is that I put up with a certain amount of provocation from him for a few months without really doing anything in response, because I’m not allowed to seek dispute resolution about it, and then finally it grows to a level where I think it’s necessary to request that admins do something about his behavior. It isn’t that I actually want to skip all of the steps in the dispute resolution process that normally precede this; it’s that I’m not allowed to use them.
In the amendment thread, Coren suggested that ArbCom modify my topic ban so that I’m allowed to seek dispute resolution with Mathsci. But none of the other arbitrators have commented on that proposal, and at this stage I think it’s pretty clear that going forward, AE and amendment requests are going to remain my only options for dealing with this dispute.
In short, no, what I said in general terms is also indicated in this specific case. If anything, it reinforces the point I was trying to make in terms of approach. Leave Mathsci to me, please. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you could be a little more specific what you’re suggesting. You suggested informal mediation; unfortunately, I’m not allowed to use that here. Is what you’re suggesting now that I just let you try to resolve this issue on your own?
Remember, what I’m ultimately looking for is some assurance that the outcome of this amendment thread won’t just be for things to go back to the way they were earlier this year, where the conflict between me and Mathsci is continuing to simmer but I can’t request dispute resolution, until finally I have to bring it up with ArbCom again. If you think you can do something to prevent that outcome, then I’ll leave that to you; I just want to make sure that’s what you mean. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I have now given both parties what I consider to be the correct advice. That is actually most of what I can do. Right now, I suppose that the only other thing I can do immediately is to point out this: you and Mathsci presumably have very little in common in your descriptions of what this all about, but I discern that you both think that the whole thing is path-dependent, in a complex and even esoteric way. Everyone else has to be told that what matters is how you both got to this point.
Well, I can deny all that. How it goes from here doesn't have to depend on past stuff. In terms of "preventing that (same) outcome", try backing away from the path-dependence thing. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
On my talk page, you wrote, "Please note that entries in {{cite DNB}} require hyphens rather than endashes, because they encode the Wikisource title convention, and are nothing to do with the MoS conventions here. Recent edits of yours have broken links to references." I am sorry if I messed up some pages, but unfortunately I can't easily determine from your comment which pages those might be. Lately most of my edits have been to articles about specific magazines that were missing the {{italic title}} template. Among others, I checked all of the magazines listed in List of 18th-century British periodicals. I don't know what DNB is used for, but I certainly don't wish to disrupt it. Have you already fixed the mistakes you've discovered that I've introduced, or do you want me to fix them? Either way, please let me know which pages are involved. Anomalocaris (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing to you as a first port of call about a reflare on the Johann Hari page. User:yonmei has again been vigorously opposing all of my edits on the page with considerable zeal. This editor has gotten it into their head that I am Dave Rose/Johann Hari, and seems to have taken it as their mission to oppose any edit I am involved in.
The worrying aspect is that this behaviour has reignited sockpuppet allegations relating to my account. Subsequent to this recent dispute, another user, User:almost-instinct, has raised concerns about my account on [[2]]. Their concerns are unfounded, and as things stand several other editors have asserted that they are not convinced by the evidence. This editor has taken their concern through proper channels, however, and has not made any personal attacks.
Unfortunately, Yonmei has felt emboldened by this to bring allegations of sockpuppetry to WP:SPI. This is the proper place to air such views, I suppose, but I think this action is a hostile one compatible with past and present harrassment. In particular, Yonmei has chosen this place to again disregard WP:OUTING, discussing my account and an IP address I have used, with reference to speculations about my location, [[3]]. Just because being outed would prove once and for all that I am not Johann Hari, does not mean that I should be subject to such outing. Yonmei writes that "Zafio claimed to have mass-deleted my comments from his Talk page because he was afraid of WP:OUTING. But if he is NOT "David Rose", and therefore not Johann Hari (Hari has since publicly acknowledged that David R from Meth Productions was his sockpuppet) then speculations that he is wouldn't have outed him." Well, such speculations just might, and its quite understandable that I would want to avoid such a situation.
I'm not particulary well informed on Bodin, but will dig around. Can you cast an occasional eye on Talk:Ferenc Dávid, I'm distracted at the moment, don't have access to my Unitarian library, and not in a position to keep track on the revisions. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Cambridge meetup geonotice
I just got off the plane from Hong Kong to London this morning. Sorry for the slow reply.
I've restricted the geonotices to East Anglia and London (meetup) and Cambridge area (CU Wikipedia Society) respectively, in the hope that we'll catch everyone who needs to see the notice but not spam everyone else. However, I'm becoming more and more skeptical about this: I logged on from my room in Cambridge, and didn't see either of the two Cambridge geonotices. Turns out geolocation thinks I'm in Lancashire where my college's ISP's located, even though the reverse WHOIS record shows clearly the IP range is sold to my college.
I don't really know where to go from this. One possible solution is to enlarge the geonotices to all UK for a week between 1 Oct and 8 Oct, just to be sure... Deryck C.19:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there is another issue: we are probably restricted to two notices, and there are two events on October 1. I don't know whether the "queue" process is transparent; but WMUK seemed to make it clear that it thought that meetups had a low priority. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's a very formal "queue" process at WP:GN - any admin can put up notices requested by others as they see appropriate. It's true though the general rule is we try to avoid having more than 2 notices covering the same location. Deryck C.19:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Re. "The general point is actually covered by lumpers and splitters" indeed it is of course, and too much splitting went on in the 1580s, but for my own juvenile satisfaction in my dotage I'll share with you here that it took literally 3 minutes to track down an English translation of more recent Polish scholarship on Symon Budny's excommunication from the Polish Unitarians and add it to Budny's bio. I have enormous respect for Wilbur, his bio-stub is one of mine, but the days when it was just Stanisław Kot filtering tidbits of Eastern European scholarship down to the West in regard to Unitarian origins are long gone. Rather than have these pointless Talk discussions (not with you) I think it's just easier to hunt for English translations. :)
OK, some dialogue is what we do here, to grease the wheels. The only issue about fine-tuned discussion on people's beliefs is "salience", a concept underused. It is hard to argue that the beliefs of figures known mainly for their religious roles are not "salient"; though I suppose it could happen.
It's always case-by-case. I used to do more of this kind of thing when I was wrestling with Puritans, e.g. Richard Sibbes, using Christopher Hill, the classic "lumper". In those days it was mainly about getting redlinks up, seedcorn for further development.
For not only finding, but fixing the copyright problem in Belgic Confession. When I got to it on the day's copyright cleanup list and saw who had tagged it, I thought, "I wonder if Charles rewrote that." You have no idea how rare it is for me to wonder that. Or how pleased I was to find you had. You impress me. Moonriddengirl(talk)21:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
List of fictional characters ... pending deletion
Hello,
You may be interested in the discussion regarding deleting a list article regarding fictional Carpenters. You have in the past created a List of surname Miller. I created a list of real and fictional Carpenter because other editors/admins told me to do so from the Carpenter surname page. Now others want to delete it. I was happy with the way it was and would be happy to merge the fictional Carpenters with the list of surname Carpenters. Any input, pro or con would be welcome.
What is the policy on references containing dead web links? If the source is reliable, and available in print form, should the ref. not be left in place, since it still sources the information given? Or, are such refs. always removed? Before a dispute begins on the Reservoir Dogs article, I want clarification. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive15:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It is possible to add {{dead link}} by the link. This gives some time to discuss what should be done next. Typically the outcome depends on how serious the lack of a reference is (for example BLP matters have to be a greater concern). Charles Matthews (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
In this case, a dead link tag was added in March. Yesterday, with no explanation, an editor removed the ref. altogether. As the source is a Playboy article, why not simply remove the link, and format the ref. as a magazine article ref. and be done with it? There is no requirement to have a web link at all. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive15:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not unreasonable just to remove a dead link after such a time period. But you also have a point. Certainly if you are able to verify the print reference yourself you can put it back in. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Such a portrait would surely be OK for copyright; and can be uploaded to Commons putting {{PD-old}} in the slot for "specialised tags". That's not a problem at all. Downloading an image from Google Books isn't one of my favourites, since you seem to have to download the whole PDF and then do some mystery grab? (Which I have to remember each time.) The work is on archive.org at http://www.archive.org/details/historyantiquiti00bent. I prefer to go there and save the page image from the "Read Online" view. Then crop.
My bad. Citation was copied from an article I have been editing but I replaced the url without changing the cite. I have refactored. Sorry about that --Senra (Talk) 00:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
GLAM and Cambridge
We really need to glam-up Cambridge! I don't know where to find my way around GLAM from the wikp/media end, or how the Cambridge University wikigroup is going, but I'd be happy to put effort myself into approaching cultural institutions around here. Any thoughts? Dsp13 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably the first step is to offer your services to User:Fæ, who is a WMUK board member coordinating GLAM. My impression is that things are largely driven by approaches from museums etc., and that there is plenty going on already. Once you get behind the acronym, there is a need to ask what is going to happen. For example the current British Museum Ice Age collaboration is going to run to 2013 and a particular exhibition; involved a "backstage" day of access to staff; and looks in practical terms like a trade-off of photo-ops of artefacts with some article writing. Experience has been gathered now, to some extent. I have had it in the back of my mind to contact the Fitzwilliam at some point, and I think Magnus Manske might be interested; but it would certainly be worth your getting the national view if the aim is to get anything on the calendar. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
-The town plan of Ely is detailed in the top right corner of John Speed's map of Huntingdonshire as shown on the CUL web site here: John Speed proof maps - Atlas.2.61.1. As far as I can tell, Speed's plan of Ely 1610 shown in Dorman, B E (1986) [1945], The story of Ely (7 ed.), Norwich: Black Horse, p. 54 is a black and white though otherwise accurate facsimile of part of Speed's Huntingdonshire map. If—as I suspect—this is not a derivative, I can copy Dorman's page 54; acknowledge my source, and apply {{PD-old}} to it. What do you think? --Senra (Talk) 01:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree to the reasoning you link to, in general terms. But noting that the relevant law and courts for us are those in the USA (because WP is hosted there). I believe your conclusion is correct. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - that was quick work & I've left it as a dead sparrow on the doorstep for the curators, so watch out for well-informed ISPs. Also 6.1K for the Royal MS DYK. Good to see you, & hope your legs have straightened out again - I can say with some certainty that you're the oldest person by some decades to have sat in that seat. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Another editor started an article on C. A. Patrides, a professor of English literature. However, we cannot access the Milton Quarterly. Given your interest in Milton, I'm hoping that you might have access to the 1987 issue with 3-5 memorial tributes (following his death from AIDS in 1986).
My resources are usually my own library and Google, since I'm not an academic. I see that there is an annual Patrides Lecture at York, and that can be in the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Although not a Milton fan, I do have e-access, how to send you the articles (there are exactly 4 = (3+5)/2 of them)? Sasha (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sasha for the offer of help and thanks Charles for the reply and both of your for many kindnesses!
I had hoped that an editor with full access would be able to check the details of AIDS-complications and his private life, quickly, for the DYK.
I recently established a gmail account, Kiefer.Wolfowitz@gmail.com, if you ever wish to send me anything.
Thank you for your posts on the Octavians, referencing one of Julian Goodare's books, a favourite professor of mine at the University of Edinburgh! MontyMee (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Oath of Allegiance of James I of England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on English post-Reformation oaths requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Wisbech
Charles. Following on from your note here (permanlink) and my responses, I sincerely hope you were not offended at what may appear to be my brush-off. That was not in any way my intention. I am a[n] settlementatriansettlementalistekisticologist person who writes about human settlements, so I tend to focus my interests on one settlement at a time. It is true, I do get side-tracked into other topics such as biographical, geographical, topographical, cathedrals ecclesiastical, archaeological, sees, etymological, hanging judges, architectural, warfare, geological, ammonites, warlocks & witches political, witches, climatological, novelistsliteral literature, sociological, Roman Roads, palaeontological and castles but I have no specific interest in, nor knowledge of, for example, Wisbech Castle. I did (hopefully) assist by drawing your attention to some sources that may be of use --Senra (Talk) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem at all. That article needs some help, and might have been your kind of thing. I've been going off on a long trajectory of articles relating to James I, for reasons I could explain, and I can't pick up on all the "opportunities" I find on the way. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Charles Matthews. You have new messages at Senra's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Need help building a stub...calling on a "heavy"
This fellow is notable (especially in early science fiction). User:TCO/Sandbox/Carl H. Claudy Want to build a stub on him, looking for an obit and some RS compliant sources. I know you are great at tracking down refs.
No ulterior motive. I'm not a Mason. Know the author from his boy's adventure books.
I read his books and they scared me as a boy. One where one of the two protagonists disseapers into another dimension, lost forever, shocked me. (He gets found in the next book, I think.) He was really a big deal in pre-Campbell times, but that is fading from our memory. But my old man was from that time and we have his books in my mother's house. P.s. You rock...amazed you tracked down the refs so fast. Not trying to do anything grand or AFDable...just a justified stub.TCO (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I just saw that Halunkenpostille is to appear on the Main page, with its author. Don't mention all authors of postils, but that one, it's good to have precise examples, say "such as", "including". But first write his article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Back in 2008, you wrote the article Pax (liturgy). One of the references you quoted was "op. cit. in bibliography, III, 171, 174." Which of the items in the Bibliography does this refer to? It isn't clear to me. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's the work by Edmond Martene. The book is actually on Google Books: this might be what the original Catholic Encyclopedia article meant. It's a bit nightmarish to navigate, in fact, because the numbers given are column numbers, two to a page; and I suspect they have "bound" the volumes together. The text is searchable for "pax" though, and the index seems useful. It would indeed be good to reference it directly, but that would require a bit more work. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The BL have very kindly given us a copy of the exhibition catalogue, which has just arrived chez moi. It will circulate among interested people, so let me know if you want it & I can pass it on at a meetup or whatever. We're having a tour in January if you want to see it again. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Quicklinks to WikiProjects (Wiktionary, WikiNews etc) are needed on Wikipedia and vice-versa, in the header or on the left-margin column. Please consider including these to the existing links for the convenience of users navigation from one project to another. Rockin291 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I'll go check out these templates, will take some time though as I'm new to editing templates and all. Rockin291 (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Notability of people included in the Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science?
Happy Holidays, Charles. The following query can wait. It is not urgent.
In preparing the article Ely for FAC (probably mid January) we are at the point of very carefully checking words, statements and references. Is your insertion: "but legal authorities such as Sir Edward Coke did not completely endorse the form of words" supported adequately by the following passage in Miller (1953) VCH vol. IV p. 1: "['County Palatyne'] seems to have been current usage at the time to describe in these terms the Bishop of Ely's liberty in the Isle; for, as Sir Edward Coke tells us, 'the royal franchise of Ely ... in divers statutes ... is named the county palatine of Ely'"?
I know this is pedantic, but my one experience of FAC is that they can be really extreme. Please help, as this stuff really is beyond my understanding.
I think it's OK: I believe he's saying "it's in the wording of statutes" but is not saying "the legal draftsmen involved knew what they were talking about". Coke would be quite at home here: he's saying that it is verifiable that some people have called it a county palatine. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
