User talk:Welham66

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. If you are looking for help, please do any of the following:
 * visit the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have
 * type   on your user page, and someone will answer your questions shortly
 * visit the directory of help pages

There are a lot of standards and policies here, but as long as you are editing in good faith, you are encouraged to be bold in updating pages. Here are a few links you might find useful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;), which produces your name and the current date. Also, it would be a huge help if you could explain each of your edits with an edit summary. Again, welcome! –Outriggr § 03:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WikiProject Films
Thanks for your message, Erik. I'm still very much on the editing learning curve so I'm sure the page you mention will be useful. I'll have a good look at the task forces you mention. Just a quick question. All the film articles I've looked at have a plot summary section. Are these encouraged by the film groups? I can't see how a plot summary can be referenced very easily. Either it's drawn from some other plot summary or it's based on the editor's memory of seeing the film? Some film articles don't have much else apart from a plot summary, with or without references. We used to get told off for writing literature essays that merely re-told the story, but an encyclopoedia article is a very different thing from a literature essay. I find the plot summaries on wikipedia very useful if I've seen a movie and missed some plot details.

Welham66 (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Gould edit screwup
(Summary: I screwed up, sorry.)

update from last week
Is this issue still unresolved?--chaser (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up, chaser. It's more or less resolved for the time being I think. Some issues remain but some progress seems to have been made. Welham66 (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work!
Very nice work on the money article. We need more wiki gnomes to fix up grammar, presentation and spelling. I'ld like to present you with a barnstar to recognize and encourage your good work. Best, LK (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much LK. It's nice of you to recognise my very modest contribution. Welham66 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland
Hi! Welham66! Thank you for your message! I am very happy that you generally approve of my edits; the article is still very incomplete, of course. I hope to elaborate on some themes with time. Unfortunately, Northumberland carries along lots of "historiographical baggage" (historian Stephen Alford, meaning his black legend). The historiography of the reign of Edward VI has seen major revisions since the 1950s; what is especially important here: the notion that Dudley (or others apart from the King) were primarily responsible for the altered succession is almost extinct among academic historians by now. For an informal view see this piece by a former WP editor who is a professional historian (that was before my time here; I recently hit upon it by chance).

As regards the paragraph about Mary I in the last section (Morris), I will try to find the date of her triumphal entry because that happened after Northumberland gave up, and it had little to do with the actual change of power (that's why I probably thought it does not so much belong to this article). Dudley's unpopularity is now mentioned directly before this (as well as in an earlier section) and more to this effect will be added, expanding.
 * I have to change the term "legitimacy", however, as Mary was technically illegitimate because of her father's laws which he never changed; he only restored her to the succession, not in blood; which means she was not Henry's heir, but a successor; i.e., she just happened to be one of the persons he nominated in his Act and his testament (see e.g., Henry VIII of England; WP is correct in this instance). As Queen, Mary had herself legitimized by her first parliament.


 * I would also like to remove that Dudley "mistreated" Mary (I mean apart from the Jane Grey thing); that was Mary's view, but she was unfair in this, ignoring the role of her brother; and, anyway, the pressure on her was not that great (e.g., Dudley restored the title of Princess of England to her in April 1553&mdash;which she had lost under her father&mdash;and she made profitable land exchanges with the Crown then and earlier).


 * That the English felt Catholic, that may be the case. I would however argue that this issue goes beyond the scope of this biographical article. Also, Mary made promises that she wouldn't make religious changes, which she then did not keep. When mass was restored, the London populace said they had preferred Northumberland to walk free rather than the mass!

Sorry for this rant, but I thought I should explain a bit (history... always problematic...) I will try to continue with the article, including some of the above issues (in small steps). Buchraeumer (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)