User talk:Clyonsking

Clayton/Harry Lyons
I realize based on your username that you're probably a direct relative of Mr. Lyons the MPP — but just to clarify, the source we used on here was his profile on the Ontario Legislature website, which says "Clayton Harry". We can't accept user-generated family genealogy sites like WikiTree as referencing for Wikipedia content, but rather restrict ourselves to reliable source coverage in media and/or official databases like OntLA. I've found newspaper sourcing which confirms that "Clayton Harry", rather than "Harry Clayton", was the order of his birth names but that Harry was the name he actually used in most daily contexts, so I've replaced the sourcing and moved the article accordingly — but we have to prioritize media sourcing over family genealogy websites. Bearcat (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi: I appreciate that you can't use family-generated genealogy information. It's interesting, however, that both our family bible and Harry's attestation when he signed up for WW1 use the order Harry Clayton. I am happy to leave it as is for now -- maybe one day Ontario will put its birth records on line and we'll find out for sure. In the meantime, thank you for your diligence in chasing down the most reliable available information. Clyonsking (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, trust me that I'm definitely aware that the Ontario Legislature site can contain errors — there's one past MPP I'm aware of who represented a district in Guelph, then later moved to Toronto and got reelected as an MPP there as well, but has two separate profiles at slightly different spellings of his name for the Guelph and TO terms. It is weird and frustrating, I know, but yeah, the fact that birth certificates aren't publicly available for consultation is precisely the problem — we always have to be able to verify our content in published sources, so sometimes we do end up replicating those sources' errors too. I've also seen articles that were located at a misspelling of the person's name, and I just recently caught a case where somebody accidentally conflated two MLAs in Prince Edward Island, who had almost identical names but were two different people, into one article because one media source had also made the same error. We definitely don't claim to be perfect, but at least we're willing to work at fixing errors when we can :-) Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and I think they actually chiseled some wrong info about my grandfather right onto the wall of the legislature -- getting that one fixed might take some doing! So now I'm going to get a little nitpicky. I'm a writer and editor, too, and I was interested that my replacement of "prior to" with "before" got undone. Here's a good explanation of why "before" is preferable: "Prior to" or "before"?. Food for thought... Cheers and thanks again. Clyonsking (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to in this instance. I just reviewed both your edits and mine, and I can't find any indication that you changed a "prior to" to a "before" at any point, or any indication that I ever undid such a change either — it may have been an edit that you wanted to make and then forgot to actually do it, but I can't see where or when you ever actually made that change. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies! So it would be OK if I changed "prior to" to "before"? Thanks Clyonsking (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ian Roy Coutts
Hello Clyonsking,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ian Roy Coutts for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know about this one as well, another editor already removed the speedy deletion nomination on the grounds that there is a credible claim of notability in the article. It definitely still needs some improved sourcing, and I've made a few minor adjustments to the article — but it isn't in danger of being deleted anymore. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks (and to the other editor, too). Clyonsking (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)