User talk:Mac Torquil

Cicely "Reynolds" Bailey Jordan Farrar
Mac Torquil - I am writing you at your talk page in an effort to help you get started editing Wikipedia. Your only edits so far seem to deal solely with Cicely "Reynolds" Bailey Jordan Farrar. I am preparing to revert all of them from 26 January - meaning that I will put the article back to the way it was before you made your edits. I am doing this for several reasons. Some of your changes are clearly intended to be disruptive, for example, striking through "Reynolds" in the opening line while adding "citation needed" tags to each instance of the name in the articles first sentence. Others of your edits are made without proper knowledge of Wikipedia's requirements. For instance, self-published information as found in blogs, and yes, even in "genforum", need to be supported by appropriate secondary or tertiary sources.

The hypothesis that you seem to wish to put forward, that the original surname of the subject of the article may have been Fludd or Flood, might well be correct, but other documentation is needed.

For what it is worth, I have no personal expertise about this subject at all, and no personal opinions about it (although I did originate the article, several years ago). If you wish to contact me at my talk page, I will be happy to help you develop your information in a way that will be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Tim Ross  (talk)  18:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cicely "Reynolds" Bailey Jordan Farrar
I'm not trying to be disruptive, but there are problems with your article. First there is no question her name was Cecily. You should put in a citation for your spelling. Second, you need a citation for Reynolds since two of her descendants are telling you there is no proof of that. One of the content guidelines is create no hoaxes. I'm not sure whether it's pride of authorship or you have an agenda, but you should do the right thing and correct this erroneous article. My faith in Wikipedia is slipping.

cecily bailey jordan farrar
How about a compromise. Rewrite this sentence to take into account what I have told you and I will leave the article alone. "Further, her maiden name cannot be said, with much confidence, to have been "Reynolds", although that name is usually applied to her.[citation needed]"


 * The article's lack of in-line citations seems to be confusing you. The citations you seek are in the "References" section. In any case, I will be happy to see your information included in the article, and will do it myself if you would like, but at least one proper secondary source for it is needed. Is there no actual publication that mentions this? It's not too helpful if the only evidence is someone in a forum saying this is the case. Tim Ross   (talk)  21:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

cecily bailey jordan farrar
Not confused at all. See this link for a properly documented article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England. You have no substantive authority for putting Reynolds in the article at all. In genealogy, there is an unfortunate tendency for some to attach their family names to a famous person. This could be a desire to get into some historic society or simply for bragging rights. All the Reynolds attributions started with a book by an author, now deceased, named Reynolds. No one can find his supposed sources. So here we are. Two blood relatives of this woman, one a professional genealogist, telling you Reynolds is mythical. Yet you chose not to modify your article. All I am asking is that a stronger statement be made that Reynolds is highly unlikely according to blood relatives. You are asking me to prove a negative. I'm telling you I do not know her maiden name but that it is not Reynolds. You are doing disservice to Wiki and others by not making this tweak.


 * Okay, let me try once more. It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) matter what I think about Cicely, or what you think about her, and it also doesn't matter how great your or my expertise happens to be. That's not how Wikipedia works. What we put into articles is supposed to be based on published secondary sources. If you are familiar with the citations listed in the article's references section, you will have noted that "Reynolds" has been used as Cicely's maiden name. This may be entirely wrong, and Fludd/Flood may be historically correct. Perhaps the experts who publish on this topic are divided in their opinions. I am happy to see the article corrected. If there are several opinions on this, and they are published in secondary sources, then the article needs to reflect that. If Fludd/Flood can be found in even one legitimate secondary source as her maiden name I will happily put it in the article. Tim Ross   (talk)  01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Her descendants call her...
I regret having to delete your latest addition to the Cicely saga, but hope you understand that what her modern descendants call her is not relevant unless backed up by publications. In such a case, the way in which such descendants know of there distant ancestor's lineage would be very important. Was it passed down in some way from generation to generation? Tim Ross  (talk)  17:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please
I see that you're having a lot of problems with your edits. Please, please, please, take a moment, a few moments even, and look over these pages. Introduction Help:Getting started Tutorial Manual of Style Editing policy If you have any questions or need any help, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Leodmacleod (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)