Talk:Jacob Blakeway/Archive 1

Untitled
Pages Katherine More, Jacob Blakeway, Samuel More I note that multiple edits have also been made to these pages. I am somewhat dismayed to find that the edits have introduced obvious mistakes, mis-spellings, and grammatical errors. for example: katherine More: line 2 "In 1616, at his father's direction" - whose father is this? The article has not yet mentioned Samuel More. Under marriage and scandal the article again mentions Samuel, but gives no clue as to who he is.

The article says: Both of Jasper More's sons died leaving no heir. The last one, Jasper, was killed in a duel in 1607. This is wrong on two levels. Jasper had three sons, and it was Richard More who was killed in a duel. There is no excuse for this kind of sloppy error.

The article also gives the 'Royal Ancestry' of Katherine More. Whilst I understand that a US citizen might wish to stress the royal antecedents of a founding father, I wish to point out in the strongest possible terms that English royal ancestry has strictly defined criteria and that neither Richard nor Katherine meet these criteria. In order to claim royal ancestry one's claim must be accepted by the College of Heralds in London. The descent must be by unbroken, legitimate, male line. The ancestry you 'claim' for Katherine applies to about 20% of the population of the UK. It is meaningless and has no place in an encyclopedia article.

I put a lot of work into these pages and I do not appreciate the way that they have been edited with so little care or regard for accuracy. Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to edit carefully. Edits should not be made as multiple live drafts, as these seem to have been. but as finished copy, following careful preparation. These are not my rules; they are set out in the guidelines for editing.

I therefore intend to revert these edits, preserving the valid sections from recent changes. Shropshire Lad (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While I understand your concerns, I must observe that a show of the edit history reveals there was very little information inserted into this article before I and other editors began expanding it. The edits you have objected to have been removed or corrected except for the royal ancestry which I will seek Administrator's advice on before taking it out. Your references were malformed in that they redirected to a book page which may or may not have been written by you. At any rate, that is prohibited by Wikipedia because it is considered a copyright violation. I, therefore, had to re-create the references in the Wikipedia format. The reference to a fictional book which, again, may or may not have been written by you, is not acceptable either as a reference or as a mention in a Source or Book Section. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to comment. Mugginsx (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To reiterate what I have said on other article talk pages that you have made comments on: I have answered you on my talk page but I will tell you simply that anyone can say they are an author here. Even if you are you must have an agreement with Wikipedia Foundation (if that is possible) to say that. Also you cannot advertise by pointing references to your books, nor can you advertising the website of your books on a talk page or an article page. Mugginsx (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As to your remarks on my talk page: First: Wikipedia copyright policy is very clear. Anyone who can edit Wikipedia can say they are you. I believe you are the author but that is not enough to satisfy legal issues. I assure you that you will be reverted everytime you try to show an actual page until you have some private legal contract with the Wikipedia Association (if that is even possible). Even then some one could hack your username and say they are you. I hope I have explained that correctly. I have not made any major changes to any of these articles on More. I have EXPANDED the article and that does not need any notice on the talk page. It is what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. I might suggest to you also that the guidelines for Wikipedia are very different than those for writing a book. You may keep your book of fiction on the pages if you like but I believe that it is forbidden and WIKI-SPAM which your announcement of your identity and internet web page, along with information as to how to purchase your book was. I would advise you to look up that guideline. I deleted that material to protect you, believe it or not. I will check into the list guideline you recommended but I am certain on the other points. Copyright violation is a highly sensitive issue which has been discussed EVERYWHERE. I also referenced in accordance with Wikpedia guidlines and was advised that op cit was not recommended by Wikipedia. Further you must look up wp: Primary, secondary and tertiary sources at No original research. Mugginsx (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Finally I must amend your amusing remark: Whilst I understand that a US citizen might wish to stress the royal antecedents of a founding father. It is only half correct.  Every citizen might wish to stress their antecendants as being founding fathers.  Americans are not generally impressed with Royalty. Mugginsx (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now edited the page removing inaccurate references and errors, and tidying the copy to improve the sense. Shropshire Lad (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No sir, what you did was retaliatory in nature and further, you have replaced YOUR BOOk with the reference of Dr. Donald F. Harris who originally found the material.


 * Further you have re-inserted your other book, in your own words, A BOOK OF FICTION, back in the articles as advertising. You should heed the warnings, Sir. Mugginsx (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Such a nice chap. I have removed the book refs as requested by the administrator and reinstated the information about the name Blakeway in Shropshire. This is relevant local information for people in the UK, where a Blakeway Society exists.Shropshire Lad (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Replaced my questionable references and advice against Op cit. referencing
I have now removed all of my refences to the self-published phamplets of Dr. Donald F. Harris and replaced them with his published works in various accredited publications mentioned in discussion with administrator. I have added other refereces and would ask that they please not be removed again and reinserted in the Op cit and op cit. above manner of referencing which, although, technically allowed at Wikipedia, is frown upon because they can be interfered with by the Wikipedia programming see: Citing sources sub-section: Citing multiple pages of the same source. Thank you to all editors involved on this and the related articles. Mugginsx (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)