User talk:Edmund Patrick/Archive 9

Redraft of Aquatic ape article
Edmund, it's taken me a long time but I've got a draft of the new article ready to be discussed. It's here so could you have a look at it and tell me whether there are any changes you think we should make before it is discussed on the talk page. Thanks. Chris55 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What can one say, I have watched and followed the work you have undertaken with admiration. No excuse for my lack of input other than serious illness and death within the family. Watching the "updates" has been excellent. Hopefully now I will find the head space to assist where I can. Once again compliments to you. Edmund Patrick – confer 13:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Edmund; sounds like you've got a lot to cope with. I'll post a notice shortly to the talk page. Chris55 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Redraft of Aquatic ape article
Edmund, it's taken me a long time but I've got a draft of the new article ready to be discussed. It's here so could you have a look at it and tell me whether there are any changes you think we should make before it is discussed on the talk page. Thanks. Chris55 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What can one say, I have watched and followed the work you have undertaken with admiration. No excuse for my lack of input other than serious illness and death within the family. Watching the "updates" has been excellent. Hopefully now I will find the head space to assist where I can. Once again compliments to you. Edmund Patrick – confer 13:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Edmund; sounds like you've got a lot to cope with. I'll post a notice shortly to the talk page. Chris55 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of banned edits
Please read WP:BANREVERT which says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks I had not realised that particular editor had created such a mass of problems resulting in the actions that happened. Why the article (a theory that I believe does reflect on a part of human development - but because of its history does more damage to itself than...) attracts such editors would be a good doctorate for someone, Matthew Hopkins is another. I still though think such work should be allowed to stand if only to keep a record of the interaction aof editors and the development of the article. But appreciate the reasoning. Edmund Patrick –  confer 06:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, once such edits get replied to (as was the case here), they should stand. The initial reversion was because in cases like this, the arguments put forth by the banned party have all be raised and shot down previously, and as such were a de-facto (if not de-jure) violation of TPG and WP:DE as well. As to why these articles attract such vociferous defenders, I can't really say. I guess some people just tightly incorporate their opinions on obscure subjects into their identity, and get emotionally attached to their opinions. Were I a psych student, I might indeed do a doctorate on the lunatic charlatans of Wikipedia.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

History
Dear EP, Well this is my Tweetosphere! What amazes me is that anyone reads it at all. It has been rather a long afternoon, and I was feeling sorry for Sir John Cheke (don't edit him right now or we'll clash): and somehow I just drifted off... I hope all's well! Greetings, Eebahgum (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * oh my once again thanks, with everything going on in the world / United(?) Kingdom / England, such reminders are wonderful. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit Edmund the Martyr
Hello Edmund, I hope you have a good evening. I was wondering why you reverted this edit. Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the lateness, poor Web access. Re-added the two dates to match the text in the article, which explains why either or even both years are correct. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 07:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you the explanation. Mill 1 (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Him again
Hellothere EP! It's me again. And it's about HIM again... A couple of points/questions. (1) Why does it say in the "Cult at Bury St Edmunds" section that Abbo of Fleury's Passio 'appeared in the 12th century' or words to that effect, when (as the Abbo section rightly states) it was written at the end of the tenth century? What has Abbo to do with the reappearance of Edmund in the liturgical calendar during the 12th century? Is this just a piece of idiocy imported from some incoherent hotch-potch? What I suppose St Ed has got to do with things at that date is contained in the other point, namely his involvement as a cult in some of those now-unfashionable expeditions into the near east which our ancestors were in the habit of making. I am sure that there was at least one very important dedication to him en route, though I can't exactly remember where. Do you want me to hunt about for it, or does the present climate warrant a praestat tacere? And so onto my third point, why isn't there anything in this article about Abbot Sampson and the opening of the shrine as related in Jocelyn? Or indeed the sacrilegious handling of E's body about the time of the Conquest? Perhaps all that is related elsewhere in WP? At any rate there ought to be something about it here, with a reference to Norman Scarfe's "Necrobiography" in the PSIA and Jocelyn. All of which amply accounts for the cult in the late 12th-13th cent. Hoping that this will not prove indigestible, and with warmest greetings as of old, Eebahgum (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, at Damietta (important disembarcation point), see this ref (near top) and citations there given .Eebahgum (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting questions worth further exploring but as I try to type this one a supposedly smart phone it will have to wait a bit. Communicate soon. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * point 1: With my limited skills I have found that the text "in the 12th century" was added between 27th December 2011 by 109.148.188.189 an editor not registered and 2nd January 2012 possibily by  [|see here]. Point 2: The present real world may warrant (and sometimes I feel like) praestat tacere but in this case no, this is supposedly an enity that is trying to be an encyclopedia let us assist if we can. Point 3: I have no idea it should be added. Edmund Patrick –  confer 08:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Opps point 3 should have a comma I agree the subject needs a mention and refs Edmund Patrick –  confer 14:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry about delay in response to your responses, EP, suddenly got caught up in the 14th-15th centuries, and have at least one foot still there. One of the difficulties (how many can there be???) is that because this article is about 'Edmund the martyr' it has to conflate the living Edmund and Edmund of the narratives and the cult. I appreciate that it is difficult to prise one away from the other, though there are evidences which belong to his life (coins etc) as well as everything which is posthumous. I don't know if there's an article on 'The cult of St Edmund' or if you have already fought that battle (and won/lost?) but there is so much that would go into such an article, including the thing mentioned above, cycles of wall-paintings and book-paintings and diptychs, the shrine, church dedications, etc etc, not to mention miracles and hagiographies, usw, that cannot possibly all go in here. Just food for thought, would enjoy your response (I hope!). Michaelmas Greetings, Eebahgum (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Moved from talk page for reference:

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

I am sorry, I missed edit summary section! (History of timekeeping devices)
Zingvin (talk, 18:27, 24 April 2017‎