Talk:John Byron (died 1623)

Gratuitous genealogy, anachronistic puffery, original research
The material that keeps getting added here violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, and much of it lacks any source whatsoever, let alone a reliable one. Likewise it is completely anachronistic to pretend that people who lived in medieval or early-modern times used the puffed up styles that came to be popularized in the Victorian era and beyond. Please quit violating Wikipeida policy. Agricolae (talk)
 * Please do not make repeated reverts on this page until consensus is obtained. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Sigh, again? It is all well and good to demand consensus when there is an ongoing discussion.  When nobody who objects to the change is willing to engage in discussion, that is consensus by default.  Do you have anything substantive to say?  Agricolae (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Did he use these arms?
The use of a coat of arms on this page is only appropriate if the subject used the arms. Is there any evidence this was the case? Agricolae (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The arms have again been restored without the slightest evidence or attempt to discuss. WP:PROVEIT.  I actually think these arms are authentic - that the subject used them.  However, that is not how Wikipedia works. It is not based on what I think, it is not based on what another editor thinks.  It is based on WP:V, and that means we need a reliable source.  If you cannot produce one, then you have no business restoring the challenged information, in this case a coat of arms.  Likewise, as above, while BRD requires consensus, somebody who thinks we should use illustrations that cannot be shown to be relevant actually needs to join in this discussion, rather than simply keep telling me to 'go discuss off'.  Agricolae (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)