User talk:Ironholds/archive8

RfA
Hello. I'm considering nominating you for adminship.

Some questions:


 * 1) Ever had an ER?
 * 2) RfA?
 * 3) Been blocked?
 * 4) What horrible skeletons lie in your editing cupboard?
 * 5) Got much recent experience at AfD?

Might add more, but that's it for now. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You sound like an admirable candidate. I'm sure you don't need me to add a co-nom if it's already under way. Good luck. See you in mopville. --Dweller (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll bear it in mind and suggest it to the next candidates who I agree to nom / agree to be nommed. --Dweller (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Falkes de Breauté
Hello there Ironholds, great job on expanding this one. However, you need to include some inline citations otherwise this won't pass through DYK. I've taken a look myself, and I turned up a particularly useful piece of material on Google Books:. Contains almost a page on him, which can be used as a ref. I'd keep searching Google Books and look for more refs; there are still parts unsourced, although we now have four primary sources for the article. Best of luck, &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks. V. Joe (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It entertaining... Some people are actually getting paid to write spam articles... V. Joe (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
I am writing an article on a really notable person who has been on tv and everything. Why is wikipedia deleting my articles? I even put why he was notable with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrothgar1 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Court of Common Pleas
I took a whack at it, as you asked, but it wasn't nearly as ungrammatical as you had me fearing. Are you a lawyer? (and, pardon my ignorance, but what's a GA?)--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

MPs biographies
Thanks for your comment on Stephen Mason (MP). I have been trying to create and/or update pages which relate to Liberal MPs in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and I'm slowly working my way through but not as systematically as I should and there's still a long way to go. My sources are mainly published works on the Liberal party and biographies, diaries and memoirs of the time which I have in my own library - although Google Books turns up quite few useful references too. I also use the online archive of The Times and other online resources like Who was Who. I will use the Northstead and Chiltern Hundreds databases for information on these politicians. My interest in all this is as secretary of the Liberal Democrat History Group and a contributing editor to the Journal of Liberal History. Regards, Graham Lippiatt (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Common Pleas

 * Hi, thanks for your kind words. I would be glad to help you if I can.  In general, concerning the history of English Common Law, the works of Plucknett, Pollock and Maitland, Holdsworth, and to a lesser extent,  Derek Roebuck will give all the information needed to write on Wiki.  Of these, my favorite is Plucknett.  Pollock and Maitland are good.  There is a lot of obscure and interesting material in Holdsworth, but it can be a little difficult to read.  Let me know what you are wanting me to do.  A E Francis (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have access to Plucknett's book at the local university library. That is to say, I have to go over there and check it out - which I will do.  I know he has quite a lot of info on common pleas.  I will be glad to add to your article where apropriate.  Pollock and Maitland is a multi-volume edition.  It is a little wandering and can be difficult to follow.  Holdsworth has a lot of info not found elsewhere, such as:  the fact that early US slave law was founded on English Common law of serfs.  I had never seen that anywhere else.  A E Francis (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I went into town today, and got three books out of the university library. Plucknett does not have as much on Common Pleas as I had recalled, but there is some info.  I also checked out Pollock and Maitland - 2 volumes.  And Potter - a book I had forgotten about.  I scanned your article on Common Pleas and it looks good.  I will add where appropriate.
 * Potter says Common Pleas was abolished in 1875. But I will trust you on that... I am putting Magna Carta ahead of the Second Baron's War.  I will take "repeats" of information out and save the references.

OK A E Francis (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC) H.E.L. is Kiralfy's abbr. for Pollock and Maitland, "History of English Law." -- also called P & M in other places. It is better to leave a lot of references in the text.A E Francis (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC) If you are going to undo everything I write, then I am through with this. Get someone else to help you. A E Francis (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA
I'm indifferent to the proposed RfA process you guys have made, but it seems to be working pretty well so far. I don't wanna jinx it with a "congrats" though. :-) One thing I was wondering, if you're discouraging "Oppose, I don't like the layout", should you also suggest to avoid "Suport, I love the layout" or "Support per your volunteering for the experiment"? Just a thought. Good luck, btw.-- Koji Dude  (C) 23:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Hi, I'm sorry to say I couldn't be present for the meetup today. There was a family event you see. Usually I wouldn't be interested but it was quite important so I had a certain obligation. When's the next one? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my successful RfA. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In praise of an excellent editor - one of the best

 * I felt honoured to nominate you for your RfA and I will gladly support you in any future RfA effort. You are an asset to this project.  Keep up your excellent work. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I second this. Wikipedia is lucky to have you :') (that means tears of joy)  Sam  Blab 12:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA comments
Ironholds, The RfA is over, but I still feel obliged to answer your questions following my !vote.

Regarding deletionism, yes, I noted your answer to Q29 and the change in your preferences, but as I noted in my comment, this is a recent change which is hard to gauge at this point.

Regarding your English, here are a few examples: you use area's instead of areas twice in your answer to Q2, once in your answer to Q33 and once in Q40. In Q15 you say for simplicities sake instead of "for simplicity's sake". And about capitalization, you use "I'm" and "i'm" interchangeably throughout the page.

Again, each of those is a minor issue, but put together they create an image of someone who may be too eager to block and delete, and too sloppy with his use of language. You are obviously a smart person, so I don't think it is beyond you to fix these issues. I'm already seeing more "Keep" votes on AfDs, which I believe is a good sign. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about the way the RfA went down. I was proud to support you, and I commend you for being able to slog through 50 questions and endure yet another RfA. Erik the Red  2    14:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Most of those opposes weren't that valid IMHO. If you choose to run again in future, I will once again support you. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I give you a lot of credit for being willing to run an experimental RfA. Keep up the good work, try to avoid inflammatory comments, and you might be good to go next time. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Impressive response (again). Can I offer a few words? Imagine everything you type you're saying to someones face. Then imagine how they would feel. Empathy is one of the basic policies Wikipedia missed. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat  20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I too was very pleased to see that particular edit--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Ironholds, I'm sorry that ended the way it did, especially after so much work on your part. I appreciate that most changes to RFA are contentious, but I can't imagine anyone would object to udating the ancient and misleading advice so that the sort of RFA candidates that you oppose can be given more realistic advice before they run. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship, I'd be interested in your views before I edit the guide.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Falkes de Breauté
Um, there is no easy way to say this, but I am a bit concerned about the similarity between Falkes de Breaut%C3%A9 and William Tresham and their respective entries in the ODNB. Our articles are rewritten; but, if I may venture an opinion, very thinly rewritten.

I have raised it here. -- Testing times (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Podcast
Sorry about the late reply, I have a huge exam coming up... Anyways, I've decided to merge with NTWW, but I may be a part of a new subproject in which editors create/expand articles over real-time communication. Red Thunder  22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, although I may want to join later if it's alright. I just didn't see it going anywhere and we had no big discussionsIf group real-time discussions are created, I'd love to come back.  Red  Thunder  22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As my time permits, I'd be happy to help. Mastrchf (t/c) 03:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re User:Unicorn144
Hi! I was going through Unicorn144's recent contributions and reverted OR in the Dajjal article similar to that in the Antichrist article. I was going to post another warning on Unicorn144's talkpage, but then I saw your note there and I thought maybe I should just give you a heads up instead. Maethordaer (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re User:Unicorn144
Hi! I was going through Unicorn144's recent contributions and reverted OR in the Dajjal article similar to that in the Antichrist article. I was going to post another warning on Unicorn144's talkpage, but then I saw your note there and I thought maybe I should just give you a heads up instead. Maethordaer (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Sorry about the double post there, I have occasionally have issues with my browser. Maethordaer (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, A le_Jrb talk  20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC
I have read this guideline. I'll quote it here for you as you obviously have not. "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This article not only lacks detail and content, it also lacks interest. It really should be deleted or merged altogether. You will have to get away from the notion that, just because you like a song then it must be notable. Your comment re chart position: I would draw your attention to the line "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts", and the reference you make to a web page that calls itself "A National Chart" but seems to have no verifiability at all. ALL songs enter the charts on the day of their official release, whether it is at number 1 or number 3001 depending on their presales and current sales (and, nowadays, downloads). Good luck with your fifth RfA (when you make it), by the way.Spoilydoily (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, 2pm too early??? With respect, I think you miss the point of my redirect. I would not call the article "reasonably detailed", nor is there much verifiable material which gives the article any interest. "The Intention Craft" is the third and final single by the British New prog band Pure Reason Revolution from the mini-album Cautionary Tales for the Brave. It was their third single and second release on Sony BMG, via their own imprint "Holograph", with a video directed by Thomas Hicks. Like most of the bands material it was composed by the bands lead Singer and Guitarist Jon Courtney.

One of the B-sides, Asleep under Eiderdown, was originally written by Jon and Chloe's previous band, The Sunset Sound (of which Jamie Wilcox was also a member for a short while)." Interesting? Encyclopaedic? Detailed? Noteworthy?Spoilydoily (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In all honesty I only redirected as it would inevitably be picked up as a stub (?) and probably be deleted. I think (and hope you agree) that anyone searching on Wiki would be more likely to search on the band and then read about the song in a discography section, rather than searching on the title, which is more the probable thing that a Pulman afficianado would do.Spoilydoily (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Internation Clan War was recently deleted and as excuse I received that it was about a club? If you read carefully it is a LEAGUE, competition, ... This is allowed.

Even lan parties (which first started by clubs) are allowed I've seen.

So could you please set teh article back.

Thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Losource (talk • contribs) 20:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling
Hi there! I've been going through the New Pages log, particularly the back end of it. I've come across an article (Bryan petro) that you've added a tag to that hasn't been patrolled. I was wondering if you could make sure that you mark an article as patrolled before you tag it as then it won't show up on the list, which will save people patrolling an article that has already been looked at by an experienced editor like yourself.

Please accept my apologies if you are doing this and the software is lagging behind, or if you're just tagging articles that you're coming across from a different source that doesn't allow you to patrol them. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
Hello again.

I mentioned above my concerns that your recent articles on Falkes de Breaut%C3%A9 and William Tresham were awfully similar to (indeed, they are clearly rewrites of) their respective entries in the ODNB - and.

Your new article on Alan Garrett Anderson is another one in a similar vein. Compare

Please don't take this the wrong way - it is great that you are adding content - but I am not at all convinced that the slight changes you are making are enough to avoid copyright concerns, and I really think you need to do more to distance your articles from the source material. -- Testing times (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I previously mentioned it up here (still at User talk:Ironholds) and at the DYK talk page.  There are some other comments there, although no one has clearly agreed or disagreed with my view.  I am tempted to ask for further outside input, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.


 * I understand the diffculty when you are relying on just one source. This is very much a grey area, but the overall impression that I get from these articles is that they are just pastiches of the ODNB entries, and that can't be right. Compare, for example, Jason Dozzell, which is currently on DYK and, I am sure, bears little resemblance to any of the cited sources, but extracts facts from them all. -- Testing times (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have pointed out my concerns with this article under its entry on the DYK suggestions page. -- Testing times (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also posted about this at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems -- Testing times (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Anderson
Legally each time the Baord of Admiralty, or the Commission of Lieutenancy, or the Directors of th eBank of England were reconsituted, they're a separate entity, so you really need to show he was appointed each time. The gazette is the definitve record for each of these soit seems worth having to me, and is freely accessible, which the ODNB for example is not. David Underdown (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly open to ways of improving the formatting (each set is wrapped in a single ref tag which is in an improvemnt from having a string of cites appearing after each one, but the information does seem to me to have value. David Underdown (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see that it makes the article particularly harder to read, a bit more awkard to edit, perhaps. But the Gazette is the most reliable possible source for his appointment, should we diminish the reliability of sourcing, just to make things slightly easier?  David Underdown (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But since it's an annual appointment, as is clearly shown "direcotrs for the year ensuing" it says at the start of each entry, you do need all them for the Gazette ref to be valid, or you've no way of showing that he didn't duck out for a year, and was then reappointed. It's all or nothing.  The ODNB is well and good, but whilst most UK residents can easily enough check it online, it's not so easy for others around the world.  The Gazette data is absolulely, definitive, and free to all. David Underdown (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest a compromise? Why not expand Lord Lieutenant of the City of London to include lists of the commissioners each year? (Yes, it's going to get pretty big, but so is List of Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, for instance.) Each year's commission is referenced to the Gazette, like the Sheriffs. In Anderson's article itself, it probably suffices to include the ODNB reference, or the reference for his first appointment. Choess (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So the oodles of references would go in the Lord Lieutenant page? Works for me. Might be tricky with the Board of the Bank of England, though. Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Might work, though we should remember that other Wikipedia articles are generally held not to be reliable sources. I also note that the discussion below about Ansell tends to demonstrate my point about using the best possible sources.... David Underdown (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, not really. Ansell confirms the Gazette is more reliable than the ONDB, something I agree with completely; it doesn't say 12 Gazette sources are needed. One confirming his appointment, yes, and one confirming he left (although I don't know if they do those, maybe if there's one where it mentions the appointment of his successor?), but if you have those two then 10 others are unncessesary. Ironholds (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But since they are a sereies of annual appointments, the only way to use the Gazette is to show each such annual appointment. Otherwise, as I said above, you couldn't be sure that he didn't take a year off.  Really yes, we should show the one for the next year as well to show he ws no longer on the board, though I suspect that since the Bank was nationalised in 1946 the board was dissolved and there were no more appointments after that time.  David Underdown (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RE
I mean that there is no topic(s).--JackyCheung (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * now it's no problem,at first,you did not split your article to section(s).--JackyCheung (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ansell
The ODNB is, amazingly enough, wrong on this. Ansell was at the top of the list for Merionethshire in 1862, but the second name on the list was pricked and Gazetted in 1863. I can only suppose he found sufficient excuse for getting out of the office (it was, IIRC, something of a financial burden). He pops up again in the Gazette in various financial connections, but never in the list of sheriffs. I'm going to remove the mention of the shrievalty and add his deputy lieutenancy. Choess (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll find a link sometime when I improve the section on nomination/selection of sheriffs, which I need to expand. There was a description in a newspaper (late 19th Century or early 20th) of candidates trying to beg it off. I think back then they needed to escort the judges to assizes and so forth, keep up a coach to do so and all that. Choess (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No rush, I'm in a relatively fallow cycle just now (RL calls). Choess (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that I look, I'm up to my ears in data I need to synthesize. (There's two full treatises on the law relating to Sheriffs in Google Books, and plenty of miscellaneous information elsewhere.) Here's a Hansard debate of 1890 that may shed some light on the expenses of the position. See also this article, which discusses the "javelin-men". It used to be even worse before 15 Geo. III, which cut down on some of this, and ordained the officers of the Exchequer to give sheriffs a prompt quietus, and not use that to extort fees from them. Choess (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh no, go right ahead. I don't have any definite plan for how to incorporate this yet, so you're not interfering with anything. Choess (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I've been meaning to make a suggestion WRT inline references. When I had access to the ODNB online (tense correct, alas), one thing that helped was to make an ODNB ref and then cite it at the end of each paragraph. It's usually easy, then, to find a citation or several to the London Gazette or suchlike, maybe to define some dates, and insert that in the appropriate place. Add another ODNB citation for the content preceding the content referenced to the Gazette, and the article is reasonably inlined, and it's easy for other people to add more inlines when they expand. Choess (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I can't get to them very easily. The library of my alma mater has them, as well as much material from the List & Index Society (Sir John Sainty seems to be the mastermind behind much of this), but I have to go into the city to consult them, and I expect it'll be at least another month before I next do that. I may work a bit on the nomination/selection of sheriffs tonight. Choess (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. You might look at List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, a featured list, for inspiration. Choess (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * gasp gasp wheeze And after three days, I do believe I've finished the categorization for the remaining High Stewards of Northstead. Thanks for reminding me. (Theatre magnate Alfred Butt (later 1st Baronet) still needs an article, though.) Choess (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page
Hello, I'm really not trying to come across rude here at all so hope you dont see it that way, but i was wondering if you could explain properly the reasons that the article 'Wiki Races', that i put up last night was removed within about two minutes of it being part of wikipedia? I could understand it if the page was in reference to something completely false, but for a subject that i know is honest and harmless i cannot see any logical reason for this. I think with the subject 'wiki races' even if it is not a recognised game/sport/pastime, it is still played across the UK in colleges as i have made reference to in my article, and you can see this because if you type into google "wikipedia races" there are many internet chat blogs that have people discussing the topic. I would appreciate it if you could get back to me or alternatively if you cannot help, tell me who i should really be taking this up with. Thankyou CJay91 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)CJay91

Postnominals for baronets in wikipedia articles
Thank you for your post; I am aware of what a baronetcy is. However I don't see that, just because it is an hereditary honour, the associated postnominal should be given greater prominence than those pertaining to non-hereditary honours such as knighthoods. Sir John Major KG has just as much right to that postnominal as Sir George Young Bt has to his, but when referring to these gentlemen in everyday speech and writing neither postnominal is used. This should also be the case in wikipedia articles, and is included in the style guide at WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Opera hat (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Eveda article be deleted
Can you specify more precisely: non-notable software. The Wiki search - Does not give any answer.

And in what you have found out it. Thanks.

About the speedy deletion
Hello, I was in the process of putting information and resources down, however I just recieved a notice that the article got deleted. It's www.aium.org, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. A major organization for the education of Sonography, they produce articles of the science, grant scholarships, among many other things.

I'm sorry that you found my article so soon, it was only a few minutes ago that I started this brand new article. I see the headline "(A3: No meaningful, substantive content)", however I repeat myself in saying that it has been unfortunate that you found my new article while i was in the beginning stages of making it. Is there any way you can undo your deletion so this page will not be scarred with a deletion such as this in the history?

Thank you

-Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankga123 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hervey de Stanton
Thank you for taking an interest in the article on Hervey de Stanton. With the exception of one or two specific positions (eg Lord Chief Justice), the English generally refer to their judges as "judges", rather than "justices", so I have restored the former. It is also not quite clear to me why you removed the reference to Stanton's role as Chief Justice, so I have restored that as well, while adding in reference to his role in the Common Pleas. Hope that's OK.

45ossington (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at your reply I'm still with 45 without a decent citation supporting your point. Almost any written official usage is going to be in Latin (iūstitia or some form) with perhaps some French surviving but the spoken form had already moved to proto-English. It's not so straight forward to decide what the correct form is. AllsoulsDay (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Aargh
Hey IH ! Trust me not to notice the RfA "fun" until it was done and dusted. Commiser...commie...commer...sympathies, but the vote was closer than last time, and it's not down to your choice of userboxes either ! From what I can see, if you keep doing exactly what you've done, but don't actually say anything at all to anyone, ever, then you should sail through the next one :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Custos Brevium
Does your reference discuss more fully the "Clerk of the Treasurer"? There are several similarly-named offices in the Exchequer, and I was wondering what this one did. Choess (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I wonder if he was some sort of liaison to transmit fines to the Exchequer; I seem to remember reading that one of the duties of the King's Remembrancer was to make sure all the fines levied by the courts were enrolled at the Exchequer. Choess (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, use the "rowspan" attribute. Poke around a little in the markup for tables of members in a Parliamentary constituency and you can probably reverse-engineer it. (Must sign off now for sleep.) Choess (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It turns out I was completely out on this one. The "Treasury" of the Court appears to have been entirely confined to records, and unconnected with the Exchequer or the royal Treasury. In the meantime, I've run across a very interesting case in researching the King's Remembrancer. The list of officeholders as it stands is from my hasty transcription of Sir John Sainty's work for the List & Index Society. While reading the obituary of Felton Lionel Hervey (who shot himself in 1785), it noted that he was appointed joint-remembrancer of the Exchequer with his father. And indeed such an appointment was Gazetted in 1759...contradicting Sainty's list, which gives the 2nd Lord Masham the place until his death in 1776. Fortunately, an article of Sainty's turned up in JSTOR, which seems to explain the affair. The 1st Lord Masham, his half-brother, and his son apparently had a patent of the office for three lives, which did not expire until 1776. Hon. Felton Hervey and his son Felton Lionel were granted a reversion in 1759, which was for some reason Gazetted, but Felton d. 1773, and so only the son came to enjoy the office. An interesting pitfall, one I hadn't anticipated in perusing the Gazettes. Choess (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My most hearty congratulations! That's wonderful! I'm glad you're getting something out of this. As regards the Gazettes, I think the lesson is that no single source is a gold standard for these things; it's always best to get a cross-bearing when you can. Speaking of single sources, do look down at the next section re: ODNB and copyright. Back when I still had access, I rewrote a number of short articles from it, and now I'm asking someone to look at them and see if they'll pass muster...even if I still had access, a lot of them would be hard to rewrite if they aren't acceptable as is. 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
Apologies for bringing this up again, but may like to read the analysis of Moonriddengirl at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems. -- Testing times (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cardiacs page.
I have long been a music lover, i will be 55 in november, and about a year ago was overjoyed after finally learning how to work the internet to find a Cardiacs page on this encyclopedia, and to see them described the way they have always been and should always be described: 'unique, varied, complex and intense'. Why have you altered this truth? They aren't The Fall (thank god!), and without those words of truth that have always described them best, the text at the top of the page makes them sound like any otehr punk group listed in this encyclopedia (The Fall, Killing joke etc), which they just aren't.

Fans or non fans and critics all agree on this, it is concrete fact, and lets face it, the fact that led zep are listed here as hard rock and not metal is at the end of the day just common POV, just like it is common POV that Cardiacs are set apart from every other pop/rock band ever...don't believe me? read any album or live review of their's from any year.

Don't insult music history, all of us who have done nothing to change it don't have that right. If everyone always behaved the way you have then we wouldn't any names for the music we're blessed with at all.

I hope you see the truth in what i'm saying.

X —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicalImportance (talk • contribs) 22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a little voice?
Nevermind mac, whatever you like.

I suggest you listen closely to some of Bob Dylan's early work and possibly read some Krishnamurti also. You'll only heal yourself some TRUE goodness there, i'm sure.

(and there is no need to swear, is there? it only displays a gross lack of vocabulary)

X —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicalImportance (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Chief Justices of the Common Pleas
Well done on this. Court of Common Pleas is excellent too. I am reminded now that I had intended to do some more on Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden but this is an historical period I'm not that good on so I make progress slowly. I am pretty convinced that there is no more on John Jervis without original research. A little tied up with the demands of pupillage at the moment so hope to be back contributing before too long.Cutler (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Off topic - I'll send you an email to avoid abusing Wikipedia bandwidth.Cutler (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just finished Camden - think I'll have a go at Erle now.Cutler (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, P retzels Talk! 10:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please accept my sincere apologies. To garner more community feedback I contacted users from areas I thought would be relevant; you were one of a selection from Editor Review and I realise now this was one of the weaker choices of sourcing. Thanks for pointing out WP:CANVASS, I think it's reasonable to say the message was neutral, nonpartisan and open, but you are correct - there may be some concern with the spread of posting. Thanks for your comment. P retzels Talk! 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for pointing that out! I'll update my scripts very soon. It's the leftover of a ursupation :) -- Mix well ! Talk 23:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

please stop deleting my edits
Please stop deleting my edits on nthe Dan Seals page. If you disagree, please put you views on nthe discussion page, and open it to discussion, as I have Cosand (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)