User talk:Tom Reedy/Archive 4

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Bob Smith (doctor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootlegger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare's life
Consistency If Shakespeare redirects to William Shakespeare then "Shakespeare X" or "X of Shakespeare" should redirect appropriately. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Greene (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles Dickens' article.
Hi Tom. I'm contacting highly respected literary editors as the Charles Dickens article has been of a low standard for a long period and edits unvetted. The one issue that needs to be dealt with in Talk:Charles_Dickens was one editors sweeping allegations. This subject in particular, has been in dire need of a collaboration and discussion among editors, and not one editors POV, so that consensus on the material is reached on talkpage, and the addition and wording scholarly. Thanks. Harrison 1979 (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom, in rewriting the allegations section (which you are probably more skilled than anyone at having a go at), i concurred with MistyMorns heading Dickens soclal opinions, while using the Thomas Jefferson section on slavery as a template. Note the balance, weight, NPOV, achieved on his section. Three/four sentences on each (his views on Franklin incident, Fagin, Blacks, and Indian incident). WickerGuy has alluded to the point that i was making at the start that Dickens worst characters were white, plus he stated "all the rest of the wicked dramatis personae are Christians". So, to have extra emphasis on the non white angle is disproportional. There also shouldn't be any images (Sikes, Scrooge, Uriah Heep, were far worse than Fagin). In rewriting the section it needs to be trimmed, and weighted proportionally as you've mentioned. The section, as it appears, is way out of proportion to what you would find in a published bio on Dickens. Now the sub article proposed by MistyMorn, Dickens social opinions and influence, could then go ahead if needs be. Harrison 1979 (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping in here to say that, beyond all the differences precipitated by the character struggle (I'd term it thus), I really do fully support development of CD article/s to give a fuller and more balanced picture of his life, work and influence. Sorry about the bureaucratic language! —MistyMorn (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditto. There were four editors who walked out in a short period due to the temperamental thrashings of YK, and having previously encountered you in Oxfordian controversies, I was especially upset to lose you. I am hoping he will think he has his due say in the fork article (hopefully also guarded from POV excess) and will thus cause less suffering and not make unreasonable or disruptive moves in the main article.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare's life—Education
I see that you have removed Greenblatt from the references, because he "shouldn't be used in this article". The section as you have left it is perfectly satisfactory, with adequate references, so this is just curiosity: what's wrong with him? I see that your c/e is "incomplete", so does that imply that any remaining references to Greenblatt are heading the same way?

All the best and, whatever else, keep up the good work.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unrelated afterthought: I was driven out of Charles Dickens because I didn't have the fortitude to deal with personal attacks from one of the contributors to the current debate. As before, I am very glad to see that you are made of stronger stuff! --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

FA sourcing?
Hi Tom - Thanks to your initiative I feel we're beginning to make some progress. RE your suggestion I also think that the referencing system should be overhauled to conform to that of an FA-level article and eschew web-only sources. Apart from blogs and "websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion" I can't recall coming across anything specific about avoiding web-only sources tout court, and I can't see anything obvious to that effect from the FA criteria wikilink you gave. But maybe you were referring primarily to activist/POV websites? I'd be grateful if you could just drop me a quick line to let me know because I'm really feeling somewhat confused by the plethora of criteria (for instance, recently I've been trying to do the right thing by using citation templates, but now find that they're not wanted at FA ). Thank you, —MistyMorn (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the main criterion I follow for reliable sources. When I say "eschew web-only sources", I mean avoid such unattributed sources as this, this, and this, all of which are used to source the Dickens article and none of which have been vetted by scholars or experts (I know NYTimes is a WP:RS, but not everything published in an RS is suitable for a scholarly topic). Surely an article aspiring to FA status can find more scholarly references to cite than an inherently unstable Web site. I don't object to providing a URL for a source if it is available (such as a Google book link), but sourcing primarily through Web sites leaves an article open to all sorts of problems and disputes, and there will be enough drama over acceptable sources anyway without inviting it. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've answered my question. I agree that sourcing should be appropriate to the topic and context. I sometimes find that the only available RS are from a website or, for example, CD booklet notes written by an expert. (Actually, even the 'blog' exclusion may be a bit arbitrary... like if one of the very few described cases of an extremely rare medical finding is reported on a scholarly blog - I've seen it happen.) Thank you again, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Landmark (Toronto)
I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on The Landmark (Toronto), as it was discussed at AfD 5 years ago and is therefore permanently ineligible for deletion under the proposed deletion process. I only did this to comply with policy and have no comment one way or the other on the merits of your deletion nomination. If you still believe the article should be deleted, feel free to open another AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. When you recently edited Edgar Innes Fripp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Opened Sockpuppet investigation of the Devere Guy
CarolDuncanslover seems to be the latest sockpuppet of HenryVIIIyes who has already used Carolduncanscousin and Carolduncanshusband and is making the same changes re Devere so far in "Merchant of Venice" and "Alls Well that Ends Well". I have opened up a sockpuppet investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/HenryVIIIyes. Cheers--WickerGuy (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Cousens
Sorry, I must have rushed right over your comment. Totally unintentional. I hope you see now why I found the claims that the article was too promotional surprising. Ocaasit &#124; c 22:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem; I've done the same inadvertently. The point is this guy is considered to be an expert by the woo medicine crowd, so he's notable not only because of the death incident. But his article needs to be consistent with other homeopathic articles. I've been looking at them and I hope to make some edits later on based on reliable sources that I think will be encyclopedic and neutral (it all depends on what my wife has planned for tonight!). Tom Reedy (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to make a similar sourcing effort, but have just been trying to get a reasonably stable, neutral version up amidst all the drama. You might find Google News Archives useful.  I have access to HighBeam Research if you need archived/paywalled news articles.  Many of those sources I didn't use in detail because I (apparently mistakenly) thought other sources were sufficiently reliable.  I'd love to work on this with you either tonight or over the weekend.  Luckily (or unluckily) I don't have a wife, so I may have more time!  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 22:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you didn't know
I'm sending this notice to all folks that have contributed to Talk:Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism.

ON 28 March 2012, an ANI case was opened proposing a ban of User:Yogesh Khandke from topic editing on Wikipedia. You can read my own contribution (neutral comment, neither support nor oppose) here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=485193968&oldid=485193212

The top of the discussion (quite long) is here. Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents--WickerGuy (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You have ...
... fifteen days to write your Dickens FA. Now get to work. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS Actually only 14.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'm going out of town here in just a few hours, but I'll see about recruiting a team when I get back. I appears that MistyMorn and WickerGuy are on board. Realistically, it'll probably take closer to 14 weeks instead of 14 days. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well his indefinite topic ban covers "colonialism and Indian history broadly construed." That in and of itself might make Dickens off limits for him (since his edits there seem to be linked to colonialism).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm pretty sure it will mean the end of all his WP editing, or at least that's been my observation once such POV editors are banned from their topic. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited John J. Rowlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boy's Life (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Shakespeare image
Hello. I know you have done a lot of work on the article. Could you restore the previous Shakespeare portrait? (prior to new one that looks an eyesore). The light was unnecessarily adjusted. Its too bright, the background shows cracks, and his face is nowhere near as clear. Thanks. Mich088 (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Need to ask a question not covered in any policy I can find
While editing the William B. Travis page, I came upon some obviously wrong and made-up edits by IP user. I reviewed his or her other edits, and saw that he or she had done the same on other pages-inserted some plausible-sounding material mixed in with some that seem to be jokes. The edits were all done some months ago, and I reverted all those edits that had not yet been and placed a warning on the IP's talk page, but I wanted to alert the admins in case that particular IP has since opened an account and is making the same types of edits on other pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Plausible looking vandalism is the hardest to deal with, and often escapes attention for a long time, unlike blatant vandalism. Unfortunately, administrators can't tell whether an account uses a particular IP address. Checkusers can do so, but their use of such information is strictly limited, and checking just on the off chance that there may be an account doing this, without evidence that there is, is one of the things they are not allowed to do. If you do find evidence of an account doing the same kind of vandalism, please report it to Administrator intervention against vandalism, and feel free to mention the connection with the IP edits if you think it seems relevant. However, unless someone actually discovers such an account I don't think there's anything we can do, beyond reverting the existing edits, which you have done. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

checking on edits
Hi Tom,

I just learned about the items you mentioned in a note on my modifications to the Wikipedia entries for Anne Cecil and Elizabeth de Vere. I would like to get the entry to the specifications you mentioned before you block me, as I didn't realize your rule about advocacy, etc. on the Shakespeare authorship question. Would you be able to work with me to get the entry correct, as far as making sure I am not advocating or sounding like I'm advocating re: the traditional Shakspar vs. Edward de Vere?

I guess my entry could be along the lines of: "Anne Cecil is a major character in the new novel, "The Rest is Silence" set in Elizabethan times. I could in turn do the same as that for Elizabeth de Vere.

Thank you for your help - I look forward to hearing from you!

Pete Hildebrandt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.240.166 (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

67.197.240.166 (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

I did some modifications to make the entries "authorship debate neutral"....please let me know what you think. They are in place for Anne Cecil and Elizabeth de Vere. If you need more revisions to them let me know.

Thanks!

Pete evereader@msn.com

(Dedication to Troilus & Cressida: From a Never writer to an ever reader....)

67.197.240.166 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You cannot get the entry "correct" because Wikipedia is not a medium to advertise your book. Please follow the links I provided on your talk page and make an effort to learn how to edit in conformity with WP principles and purpose. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Checking on references to my novel
Hi Tom,

I just noticed you removed the reference to my book again. I've worked with my entry over the past couple of days to A) not make it simply a link to the place where the book is located B) remove any reference that makes it sound like I am taking sides in the Shakespeare authorship debate as you mentioned.

My question now is, how is a reference to how these individuals are portrayed fictionally, just as in the entries above them - including one re: the recent film "Anonymous" inappropriate? Here they are once again, in the most bland and non-controversial language possible:

''Elizabeth de Vere is also a character in Peter Hildebrandt's recently-released historical fiction novel, "The Rest is Silence."

Anne Cecil is also a character in Peter Hildebrandt's recently-released historical fiction novel, "The Rest is Silence." '' Please tell me what should be done to these statements to make them appropriate? I have been researching my book since 1999 and spent quite a few years writing and revising it. I know the lives of these characters inside and out and feel honored to have portrayed one possible version of them in my work.

I honestly want to know what is inappropriate about this factual statement re: the use of these real-life persons from history in a work of fiction.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Peter Hildebrandt 67.197.240.166 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK another question
Tom,

If someone else, another reader of my book were to add these references would that be OK? Does a different person adding that reference make it NOT like advertising the book, which was not my intention.

Thanks!

Peter67.197.240.166 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why won't you read the links I sent you on your talk page? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

interesting argument
Hi Tom,

I got your last message. Thanks for taking the time to write back. I may be wrong about this, but I'm just wondering how many other books, e-books, regular published books, self-published books, etc. are out there, published every year that feature those two characters, Anne Cecil & Elizabeth de Vere within their pages? Yes, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of book published each day or week and no, you do not want all of them posting on Wikipedia. But then again, why not? Isn't Wikipedia all about the free exchange of information and ideas? Perhaps I thought wrong. I apologize Mr. Tom.

But here you have one book with a reference to these two people featured on Wikipedia and you are forbidding reference to them, whether I place that information on there or whether someone else does apparently.

Just come clean, Tom realize that I and others who have done their homework on this issue, apparently controversial enough to keep you and others from a free exchange of ideas, have a right to place information about Edward de Vere and his family on Wikipedia. This isn't about me and my book, it's about you and your feelings on the traditional Shakespeare being the only one acceptable to a group of people who feel that the growing mountain of evidence supporting Edward de Vere as the most likely person to have written the works attributed to the pen name William Shakespeare and the illiterate person Shakspar (he never in his life spelled his name "Shakespeare") must be suppressed and marginalized at all costs.

I just want to know why you seem to defend this person to the death? Is it your sense that we cannot be embarrassed or that duped all these years? Have you ever read Diana Price's excellent book "Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography?" Price is no Oxfordian but she sure takes a good look at what Shakspar from Stratford truly was. Why were his children and parents illiterate, why was there absolutely no mention of his having been any sort of a writer when he died in 1616, not a peep - wouldn't Stratford have been at least a bit proud of him? And why nothing mentioned in his will about what was to become of all those great works of literature upon his death? I know that royalties were a bit different then, but Shakspar was supposedly a very shrewed businessman, wouldn't he have been concerned about the proceeds of his work NOT going to his wife that he grudgingly left his second-best bed to & specified that his bones not be moved anywhere near hers? Why were the only letters in existence addressed to him apparently never opened? I may be wrong, but could it have been that he wouldn't have been able to read the contents anyway?

I'm a freelance magazine writer and novelist. This whole episode is reaching the point where it might make a great story in itself:) Thanks, Tom.  I appreciate your great help.

Pete67.197.240.166 (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Apparently you have confused me with Johnuniq, who left a message on your talk page. Your misidentification of the author of that message does not engender confidence in your judgement about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.
 * 2. You don't have a problem with me; your problem is with the policies and principles of Wikipedia. I provided you several links that you might educate yourself about them. Please read them.
 * 3. Wikipedia is not about "the free exchange of information of ideas". It is also not about freedom of speech. It is an encyclopedia.
 * 4. Talk pages are not forums for general discussion of topics. I do not wish to engage with you about the Shakespeare authorship question. My views are well-known throughout the SAQ community.
 * 5. I assure you, your arguments and strategies have all been rehearsed here before, with no more result than you are experiencing. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You might want to use your time more productively. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies
I thought that I should make an official apology to you for any offense that I have caused. My initial reaction was based on the fact that I saw sourced info being removed. Old Moonraker squared me away on what you were doing. You are right about the Shakespeare wikiproject being moribund so I will just say keep up the good work that you are doing and again my apologies. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary on your part but accepted on mine. I'm just happy somebody is watching things around here. Cheers Marnette! Tom Reedy (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Upload Folger Library images?
Currently in a holding pattern, waiting to here back from their representative about setting up a meeting. Kaldari (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

New templates
I see you are a bit of a Shakespeare guy. I just wanted to call your attention to the newly created Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Twelfth Night, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labour's Lost, As You Like It, Henriad and Shakespeare tetralogy. I am not a Shakespeare guy, so I am just letting you know that you should feel free to revise, add and remove content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Howdy Tom
Hey, any chance you could give me a week to review/respond to any messages left by you (and others) before reverting edits on the Oxfordian theory page? No 24/7 internet access and a hip pocket much too small to tote Doc S's dissertation have proven disadvantageous regarding timely discussions. Much appreciate your consideration and your time. Take care, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't edit the page until you can provide the rationale. You've been asked several times to justify your edit to show that it is relevant to the Oxfordian theory. That's why you get reverted. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing the rationale for your reversion... merely the fact you don't allow me time to respond before doing so. Thanks anyway. Knitwitted (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Tom Reedy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Thank you. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC) ·

Would you be willing to redact?
I haven't read all the background that lead to your strong comment at Talk:Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford, and I have little doubt I'd be more sympathetic if I read all the background. That said, while the community is debating civility issues, it seems unlikely you would point to it as your finest moment. The community clearly has some concerns with the contributions of Zbrnajsem, but your comment muddies the waters. Would you consider redacting it? I agree that the editor has some, uh "creative" ideas about your motivations, but it would be much easier to respond forcefully if the editor didn't have any valid points.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  15:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Partridge's dictionary of slang includes it as designating 'surprise, anger, frustration and wonder' primarily. It only acquires the blasphemous cast of meaning in the minds of evangelical twits. Still just as you can call a "cunt" (person) an "adjacent demesne" or Durrellesquely "tunc" and blindside everyone but an Elizabethan, I suggest that when next tempted to 'ejaculate', you substitute 'fucking', even in the interleaved version you used, with something like "effing" or "gerundive f" as in 'J gerundive f' C', to avoid copping an evangelical fatwa!Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous assertions and ridicule
Hi Tom. This is about this incident. The assertions were ridiculous. Still don't think the editor should have been ridiculed, tho.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Shirt, I really don't have time for another useless Wikipedia debate. I suffer fools gladly enough, and I'm aware of their value in holding our feet to the fire, but I see no mean-spirited ridicule in my responses to him and as far as I'm concerned this discussion has been closed and the slate has been wiped clean until the next time. Learn to let go when all the meat has been gnawed from the bone. Life's too short. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about a User
Hi, I was looking at a page in which a certain member has made over 50 revisions within two days. You are familiar with this user, but I refuse to reveal their name. I will simply point you to the page Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge. Honestly this seems to be happening on quite a few pages! Isn't that a bit obsessive? -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * PS -- I bring this up because certain claims have been made which are somewhat ludicrous; like that Cambridge could be in fact the son of the Duke of Exeter. -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming she has answered your concerns with the addition of the source? Tom Reedy (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh, not very sufficient. I think the situation in question was a rumor or story which one author chose to elaborate on; it comes from Chaucer who used the chronicle of scandals at the English court. We don't know how reliable this all is, but none the less she is cooperating. Thanks! -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Jesus and Edward de Vere
Does your new invention "Jesus H. Christ" (on the talk page of the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford article) stand for Jesus Holy Christ, Tom Reedy? In this form, it would be at least acceptable from the moral point of view. However, it would not be correct as a citation of the name of Jesus Christ. You can inform yourself on the pages Jesus and Holy Name of Jesus (this is also Iesus Hominum Salvator, IHS). Please keep your language correct as far as names and definitions are concerned. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone who can create a section entitled "Jesus and Edward de Vere" needs to rethink their priorities. Can you just drop this, and concentrate your considerable energies on article content. BTW, "Jesus H. Christ" is a familiar expression, which even has its own article! Paul B (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought the "H" stood for Harold. Tom Reedy (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I did not know about Jesus H. Christ, but this is quite normal for someone with my backgrounds. On the other hand, you don´t know everything about Central Europe, for example. Anyway, be aware that everybody needs his portion of criticism. I am no exception, and you, my two predecessors on this very section of Wikipedia talk, are neither. This applies also to Nishidani. Not a long time ago he was criticized by the founder of Wikipedia for his tone. Since that kind of incident there is some (further) progress towards a complex information on the pages concerning the SAQ. I am ready to tell you that you two gentlemen are part of this progress, in your own way and trying to preserve your status. I hope nobody will try to circumvent this process. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC) --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What the freaking flying flippers was that supposed to mean? (Please don't answer). Paul B (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A Jewish friend of mine in high school said the H stood for "Hymie".--WickerGuy (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I do answer, Paul B, but only to return the compliments. I am grateful to you that you recognized my considerable energies, especially with respect to my physical age. Second, I also thank you very much indeed for teaching me the fine sides of the English language. I have downloaded the pages concerned, so I can further improve my English. Have a nice day, sincerely --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)