User talk:Lobsterthermidor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello, Lobsterthermidor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Joseph Watson & Sons Ltd, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ironholds (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joseph Watson & Sons Ltd

A tag has been placed on Joseph Watson & Sons Ltd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Watson's of Leeds

A tag has been placed on Watson's of Leeds requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Siston, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. mono 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Twelve Knights of Glamorgan

A tag has been placed on Twelve Knights of Glamorgan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --cocomonkilla ^{(talk) (contrib)} 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Lobsterthermidor, I have removed your hangon tag from the above article; the references make it a notable subject. However, please don't remove speedy deletion templates from any articles you create; this is often interpreted as vandalism by editors. Thanks, and happy editing, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Denys of Osterley

Hello Lobsterthermidor. The person seems to be depicted here: File:HenryVIIdeathbed.jpg. For more sources, you can check Google Books. Have a good day. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir Richard Weston of Sutton Place

Hello. Please do not replace the #REDIRECT [[...]] string with the original article's text. I have moved your article to a new title because it did not really conform with our naming conventions. Anyone who looks for "Sir Richard Weston of Sutton Place" will automatically be redirected to the new title, Richard Weston (1465–1541). Regards, De728631 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Gray's Inn

Your additions here are completely unreferenced, unless they appear in Fletcher's work. As such, I'd suggest you follow WP:BRD and don't keep blindly inserting the material. Ironholds (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=I admit my error and understand why I have transgressed. I regret my behaviour. I will not repeat it in future. I have formally withdrawn my legal threat in an e-mail to the person concerned. I believe the block is therefore now no longer necessary, and should be removed. I therefore request its removal. I intend to make positive contributions to Wikipedia in the future, all in accordance with the rules.}}

I am not holding this for a comment from the blocking administrator, but from the subject of the legal threat to confirm that you have redacted and withdrawn the threat. SGGH ^ping! 12:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The conversation basically went "You hacked my computer, I'm reporting you to the police" "That's a legal threat" "alright, I won't go to the police if you don't hack my computer again". I'll leave it to you to decide if that counts as a withdrawal. Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Text of e-mail received from Ironholds 25/5/ 16:31 "On the subject of the legal threat; I've emailed the blocking admin to note that you've revoked it". Sounds like an acceptance to me. My revokation to him was not conditional as he asserts. I simply added, please don't do it again, not if you do it again...then... There is a big difference. It was done in writing, I've never had a conversation with him, the e-mail's there to prove it, if required. I will repeat it here if that helps to clarify my attitude. Dear Ironholds, My legal threat is withdrawn unconditionally, and I apologise for having made it, due to an unfortunate misunderstanding on my part. I have learned my lesson, I now know what the rules are and as I stated, it definitely will not happen again. I am very sorry to have acted in the way I did, I'm new here, no excuse I know. I believe I have got lots of good work to contribute.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

Yup, sorry - the message I left here was pre-email to you. I've got no problem with (and support) this unblock. I think that Lobsterthermidor has the potential to be an excellent contributor; he just isn't that familiar with our policies. Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gray's Inn Manor

A tag has been placed on Gray's Inn Manor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Gray's Inn article looks to be very thorough. But if you have more information, why can you not add it to that article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  The Gray's Inn article is on the Inn of Court - Lobsterthermidor's article is about the ownership of the land itself prior to the Society's purchase, which is distinct.Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  That is correct. The article you refer to is about the history of the Honourable Society of Gray's Inn, distinguished tenants and later owners of the manor, which necessarily deals in a fairly superficial manner with the early history. There is a thousand years of history to relate before that time - not that I intend to do it all, but certainly the early mediaeval portion. It will dove-tail into that article. The page on Inns of Court gives the entire history only a couple of lines, and is currently swathed in tags, unreferenced etc. Where is the history of the manor to go? I'm sure all agree it should not be suppressed? Do not wiki readers wish to know about these things? I don't see what the issue is.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

  Seconded; if there are sources, it should have an article, full stop. (Incidentally, I'm planning on writing a big-arse article on the Inns of Court generally. Obviously it will again be a bit superficial, dealing with the Inns as an educational and professional institution only). Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  I am grateful for you secondment, but the consensus seems to be that the article is not wanted, so I'm not going to waste my time writing and researching only to have it deleted. Good luck with the Inns of Court article.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

  Why don't you work on the article in your user space first, and then move it out when it's ready? That way you won't have to fear an incomplete version being deleted while you're working on it. Akerans (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  Very good point - wish I had thought of that before. Had pretty much reached the same conclusion myself. Will do so in future.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Gray's Inn Manor again

Hello,

At present I can't see any connection between the title of this article and the content in it, but all the same I can see that you are writing about a verifiable historical subject of some interest. Do you intend to add to the article to clarify what it's actually about? If so, I'll leave it alone and let you do so. If not, I'll consider proposing it for deletion because it's not useful to the reader in its current state.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes please propose for deletion, first half only has been deleted by an Admin. I think the best place for this topic may be within the existing page "Inns of Court", but I note above that Ironholds is planning a new article on this topic, and my hope is that he might give the historical background more prominence. I will therefore leave this subject in his capable hands and move my attention elsewhere. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

To be honest, probably not. The Inns of Court as a combined body have so much on them that I can't really include a complete history of the use of each one. It's not going to be an article on all four, so much as one on the Inns as a whole - educational trends, type of members, so on. Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading free images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [1]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! Barret (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Bump: just to remind that you can use Commons for PD-art type files. Makes them accessible for other Wikipedias. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:JosephWatsonBaronManton.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:JosephWatsonBaronManton.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —mono 00:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:JosephWatsonBaronManton.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JosephWatsonBaronManton.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —mono 00:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now supplied the required copyright details per my e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I have also copied my e-mail to user:Mono, as required. I have therefore removed the tag "deletable image-caption"(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Syon Abbey a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Syon Monastery. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, please accept my apology for my ignorance of this procedure. There are I think 2 others, now reported as requested. Regards (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

Richard Tylney, 1st Earl Tylney

There is a guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. The correct introduction should be: Richard Tylney, 1st Earl Tylney (5 February 1680-March 1750), known as Sir Richard Child, Bt, between 1704 and 1718 and as The Viscount Castlemaine between 1718 and 1731, was..." As for the article on the Tylney earldom, the format I used is the format used in thousands of peerage articles. You have removed important information on the holders of the Child baronetcy, which could be considered vandalism. Can you explain why your version is better than the one I provided? Tryde (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Baronetcy of Child of Wanstead is summarised & now fully listed in its proper place, with the other 3 Child Baronetcies at Child Baronets. This information does not belong in an article specifically about the Tylney Earldom. I agree that I had deleted the list of baronets from the article on the Earldom, so have now re-instated it in the Child Baronets article, please accept my apologies. The page for the Earldom as such needs to stay so the title is listed in the correct form in the category Earldoms & Extinct Earldoms, which incongruity your previous edit concerning the Viscountcy brought to my attention, which latter issue still needs resolution - i.e it is not listed in its correct form in the category Viscounts etc., unless a separate article on the Viscountcy be created with title Viscount Castlemain. I don't know whether you consider this worthwhile or necessary. For completeness, which surely must be Wikipedia's ultimate goal, it should appear in the list. As for the introductory text you suggest, which I previously reverted, my detailed and considered rationale is set out in the talk page. Regards, (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

As for the peerage article, there are guidelines for these at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. In this case, all the material should be located at the highest title (i. e. Earl Tylney). When a baronet is elevated to a peerage the information is included in the article on the peerage, not split between a separate article on the baronetcy and a separate article on the peerage. Earl of Kimberley is a good example: the Wodehouse family were first elevated to a baronetcy, then to a barony and then to an earldom. However, all information on the family and the titles are included in the article Earl of Kimberley and not split into three articles on the baronetcy, barony and earldom. In the case when there are several baronetcies created for persons with the same surname (for example Child Baronets) and the holders of one creation are elevated to the peerage, the material on this creation should be located at the peerage article, with an appropriate link at the baronetcy article (as was previously the case with Child Baronets).

As for the introduction in the article on Lord Tylney, there is a guideline for this as well at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. The format I have used in both cases is used in thousands of articles on peerages and peers, and I don't see why these two cases should be any different. As we are not likely to agree on this I suggest we bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage so that others can give their views. Tryde (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your last suggestion seems sensible. Wikipedia Guidelines are just that - guides for the general case, not hard and fast rules - and I would wholly agree with your reasoning in the case of Earl of Kimberley et. al. There are however two significant differences with Child/Tylney. Firstly, there was a most unusual name change at a most unusual juncture. The 1st Earl never used his new surname, as by then he was a peer, so it was a quasi-theoretical change. It would be pedantry in the highest degree to introduce a man in his biog. under a name which he himself never used and by which not a single one of his contemporaries or later biographers ever knew him. Secondly, there are 3 other Child Baronets, so a page for the Child Baronetcy already existed. I take it there was only one Wodehouse Baronetcy, so it might be deemed wasteful of computer memory to create a new page for it alone: that I suspect is the rationale of the WP guideline you quote, pure pragmatism. But it would be absurd not to make the existing Child Baronetcy page the main reference site for that of Child of Wanstead. When a reader goes to the Child Baronetcy page he expects to read in detail about all the Child Baronetcies, not be redirected elsewhere. You state that for Baronetcies sharing the same name those subsumed within peerages should be listed on the page for the peerage. Is there a WP guideline to support this? What possible relevance could there be for a reader interested in a particular peerage in a listing of detail about a baronetcy? Thus the WP Guideline in this particular instance needs to be overruled, not senselessly and slavishly followed. Regards (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC))

I don't know if there is a particular guideline but this is the system used. See for instance Jessel Baronets and Courtenay Baronets. I am going to revert your changes to the article on Earl Tylney and Child Baronets so that these articles follows the same format as other peerage and baronetcy articles. Tryde (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now created Tylney-Long Baronets and substantially expanded Earl of Mornington so that it's possible for the reader to follow the descent of the Tylney name and estates. I also suggest the following introduction for the article on Richard Tylney, 1st Earl Tylney: Richard Tylney, 1st Earl Tylney (5 February 1680-March 1750), born Richard Child and known as Sir Richard Child, Bt, between 1704 and 1718 and as The Viscount Castlemaine between 1718 and 1731, was an English politician." This would follow the guidelines. Is this acceptable to you? You are probably correct that he never used the surname Tylney although I suggest that this, his legal surname, is still used in the article title. This can then be explained in the article. You also write: "...the lesser title of Newtown [was] designed as a courtesy title for Child's eldest son..." Heir apparents of Viscounts doesn't carry courtesy titles (except for "the Honourable"). Do you have a source stating that this was an exception? It was pretty normal for Viscounts to be granted subsidiary titles that were never used. I also have a feeling that the style of the barony was "Baron of Newtown". Tryde (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been copied to Talk:Richard Child, 1st Earl Tylney, for the benefit of future editors. Please continue this discussion on that page. Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC))

Image question

Hi Lobsterthermidor! The new image (File:MarwariHorseRajasthan.jpg) you added to Marwari (horse) is really nice, but I have a quick question. Did you take it? If not, how do you have copyright? If you took it, will you please add something to the page like "I, User:Lobsterthermidor, took this image"? If you took it, I realize it seems redundant to the copyright tag you already placed on the page, but since the article is a featured article, we need to make sure all of the i's are dotted and t's are crossed when it comes to images (and everything else!). Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like the picture, yes I did take it. I will add the sentence you require to the image file. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Cool! Thanks for the quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

I would like to thank you very much.

I am very glad someone did it so well, I'm owner of the book The Story of a Family through Eleven Centuries and I have also personal interest on this page. --Bironet (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is I who should be thanking you for having the good idea to start the page. I have long been researching the Russell and Denys families, for whom Gorges were such significant ancestors. I think there is still more clarification needed re the early history, which I believe is contained in your book, which I have only seen parts of. Is it very rare? I will try to obtain a copy. The Victoria County History has been an excellent source. The arms of Gorges are shown quartered on the Denys Brass (1506) at Olveston, Gloucestershire, and on the exterior of Siston Court (c.1550) which aspects I intend to add to this article in due course. Many thanks for your approval. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

I really appreciate your approbation and I hope it helped you in some way. If we're talking about book ofcourse because of your focus I will send you parts which I can find further. I think it is very rare and I deduce this from just few prints and no chance to buy it. I'm very sorry I haven't it by me now- it is in library of next family part, but I will bring it and study very soon. I am Görges and somewhere written Gorges- family tree prabably lead to sir Wiliam Gorges ( son of Edmund Gorges and Anne Howard) and śome descendants in 17th century went to Germany. There something happened becouse of ureasonable changes o-ö ( I guess it could be just mistake). today I'm living in CZ and I would like to prove it by some informations, not just by family tree made by civil statuses. --Bironet (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased to say I have found a copy of the book by Raymond Gorges at Somerset Archives in Taunton. It is a very impressive book. It must indeed be very rare as it is not displayed on the shelves. I will therefore be adding more detail to the article from the book which I hope will meet with your approval. My own area of greatest interest is in pages 1-44, the early history of the family. Am interested to hear you are a Gorges yourself, I hope you will persevere and clarify your section of the family tree, finding the last few missing links I suspect will be the hardest part! Regards (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

Hello, I have to inform you that now I have my book and I have also found the possible explanation of change ( o- ö). Sir William ( I have been writing about) was living in court ( herritage of family Budockshed) and the coat of arms of vilage and court includes st. George. Becase of many other findings I belive there was a mistake or some simplification of writing ( Gorges + George = in german background ,, Görges"). I will give on the page many pictures from my book cause now I can. If you want to know sth. from the original one, please tell me I'll send you everything you want. Have a nice day! --Bironet (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. From Raymond Gorges' book I have made an error in my account of the change of armourials from gurges to lozengy. I was relying on Burkes Armorials 1884 which I think is in error. If you want to re-edit, go ahead else I will do so when I have fully read pp.1-44 of the book, which I had to photograph by camera, so I have only poor, but adequate copies. If I can't read it easily, I will take up your kind offer to send me copies. Best wishes. p.s. I will copy all of this discussion to the article's talk page, for benefit of future editors, so please reply here Talk:Gorges family(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

tweak, tweak, tweak, tweak

The "Show preview" button can be your friend. I'm just sayin'. —Tamfang (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

blazon

Who spells it with 's' in English? None of the books I have handy (Brooke-Little, Moncreiffe, Friar, Fox-Davies) ... —Tamfang (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, regrettable error on my part, sorry. Will correct.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC))

Harold Godwinson caption

Hey, there's been some concerns raised about your recent expansion of the caption for the image on Harold's death. It be great if you could comment! -- Sabre (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Domesday book

Thanks for your various additions to Somerset village articles re the records of the Domesday Book & Turstin FitzRolf. You have added www.domesdaybook.co.uk as the citation. Would it be possible to add a more specific URL eg http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/somerset1.html & if possible use Template:Cite web to add in the title, publisher, accessdate etc.— Rod ^talk 09:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do so if you wish. I made the Somerset edits as part of a block edit & wikification (continuing work) of all the English manors held by Turstin, which cover several counties, so used a general standardised reference to the source site in each case.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC))

Wynebald de Ballon

I did not add a "Refimprove" tag to the article. The tag was added by user Michaelmas1957 on 7 November-- Ehrenkater (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me right. Will redirect my comments. Regards. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC))

Maurice Denys

Thanks for your note. I've done some more work on him. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Tackley

Thankyou for your additions to Tackley.

Wikipedia has helpful standard templates for formatting many things, including book citations: Template:Cite book. You have cited two sources for your additions to Tackley: Whittle's The Early 17th Century Gardens of Tackley and Markham's Cheape and good husbandry for the well-ordering of all beasts, and fowles. I have done my best to convert them into the standard format but I have been unable to find missing details of either publication online. Please will you fill in the blanks?

Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply on my talk page. When replying to messages, please do so on the same page. This helps both your interlocutor and other contributors to follow any dialogue without having to keep switching between different talk pages. Motacilla (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You have seen my response to your posting above, perhaps you could answer the question I posed, namely, what more info you want for the citation of the 17th. c. book. I gave you the author, title and date. They didn't have ISBN no's in those days. You seem more concerned with the minutiae of filling in boxes rather than the value of the actual text supplied to the articles. ISBN no's are not a requirement for citing books, not in British universities at least, but if you like them, feel free to add them yourself.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Nuneham Courtenay

Thankyou for your additions to Nuneham Courtenay. However, you have again supplied incomplete citations of published works. This time I have been able to find the missing details online and have inserted them. If any detail is inaccurate, please correct it. While adding your citations you deleted the formating of some existing inline citations. Please don't. You moved Nuneham Courtenay's infobox to the end of the article, asserting that it was "too obtrusive, wrong format for printing". Wikipedia consistently places infoboxes at the beginning of articles, including those for tens of thousands of villages and towns in the UK and other countries. Do you seriously mean to re-order tens of thousands of articles, or only to leave a selection of them in an unhelpfully different order from all the rest? If you are dissatisfied with this convention please tell WikiProject Cities.Motacilla (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re the infobox, it was clearly incorrectly formatted, so when printed off it took up a whole page and a quarter, and looked a total mess. It should take up only a box in the top r-h corner. It was too wide. Clearly this is a fault. As I don't know how to put it right, perhaps you can do so. As for the value of the box, I don't think many of the details provided in it warrant front page exposure, e.g. postcode, dialling district etc. These are matters best dealt with as an appendix in my opinion. Infoboxes are fine as long as they're not merely filled with information for the sake of filling the box up. I don't see the value in straight-jacketing all WP articles into a single format. Perhaps you could tell me what was incomplete about my citations. As for having deleted existing citations, I wasn't aware I had done. If so I apologise.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

OK I think I see what you mean about incomplete citations, re Roskell, please accept my apology for the oversight, it's not my policy.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Can I use your photo?

Thanks for your contribution. I woriking in Korean Wikipedia, so I'm still clumsy with speaking in English. It is nothing else but I write this because I ask you to use photo named 'Harold's Fealty' at Korean Wikipedia. If you are not copyrighter, then would you tell me who have it?. Thank you --Saiela23 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead, no need to ask. The rule to follow is simple: if an image is already uploaded onto Wikipedia, anyone can use it on another WP article, no permission required. The copyright & license issues will have been dealt with by the person who originally performed the upload, i.e. myself on this occasion, and any subsequent copyright problems will be addressed to him, not to subsequent users of the image. Regards, (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

Speedy deletion nomination of File:WilliamHodsonGroup.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:WilliamHodsonGroup.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 ^talk 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

File:LeQuesneKettle.jpg

I was just editing Paul de Lamerie and noticed that you uploaded this image of a silver kettle in December with a {{PD-self}} tag - that is, saying that you own the copyright. But there is an image that looks almost identical at the V&A website - http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/56751-large.jpg - which was put up for an exhibition from May 2009 to May 2010 - http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/56751-popup.html and http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/metalwork/paul%20de%20lamerie_maynard_master/index.html

Are you sure that you own the copyright to this image? Did the V&A have your permission to use it before you uploaded it here? -- Theramin (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have today sent an e-mail to the V&A images dept. to resolve your query. Meanwhile I have reverted the image from the article to the talk page, to be replaced once the copyright issue is resolved. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Has the V&A replied to your email? The image is still being used at Robert Knight, 1st Earl of Catherlough. -- Theramin (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, property of Courtauld Institute, need to contact them to clarify, which thanks for reminding me to do. In meantime have removed image from Catherlough article. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

Arabesque

Stop this at once! You are just wrong on this point, as I have already explained at two talk pages where you have not troubled to reply! Any further edits on this topic before discussion will be rolled-back. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen the talk page you refer to. I will locate it and read your argument. Please note that my edit was fully referenced and discussed on the talk page. A discussion is needed on this topic. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

I replied on BOTH the talk pages you edited, under your comments. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed the crux of the matter in the postings you refer to, namely the fact that arabesques are derivative forms: "A flowing linear decoration" (Penguin Dict. of Art & Artists, 1959); "A design of flowing lines, from French, from Italian arabesco in the Arabic style" (Collins Dict. of the English Language, 1986). The current text is not about such European patterns, but rather about their Arabic prototypes. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

The crux of the matter is what the term is used to describe. It occupies a far more prominent place in histories of Islamic art than of Western art, and there is no overall term in English, or as far as I know in Arabic or Persian, that is an alternative. The etymology is beside the point. The OED definitions 1.2 and 2, which I can't be bothered to retype, do not support your position at all, not that they are always very reliable for art terms. Nor do the sources you yourself quote give any hint that the term is restricted to describing Western art. It is a strange argument that a term meaning "Arab-style" cannot be used to describe Arab objects, especially when the evidence of usage is overwhelmingly the other way. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Stately homes

I have reverted your edits to those country houses on my watch list. "Stately home" is an unencyclopedic and very ambiguous term and in no way takes precedence over the term country house as it defines more an industry than a type of building, its use or architecture. Wentworth Woodhouse is not even open to the public - so does not even qualify as on the grounds that its available for public view. Giacomo Returned 09:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just looked at you edits to Stately home. The edits are littered with errors - for a start, stately homes are not always in the country - what about Apsley House, Spencer House or even Buckingham palace, to name but a few just in London? You seem to be confusing country house and stately home as meaning the same thing. I see you have Wetworth Woodhouse as the lead image - large + country does not equal stately. This stattement here: "Thus Belvoir Castle, Warwick Castle, etc., whilst converted to grand residences, are not true stately homes" is complete rubbish - Belvoir was almost completely rebuilt in the 19th century and literally tens of castles qualify as part of the "stately home industry"; there are numerous other such edits; I would go as far as to say the page is now so misleading that it's almost a candidate for deletion. Please research and ammend all the errors. Giacomo Returned 09:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Am grateful that a discussion has been opened on this topic. I suggest it now be continued on the Stately home talk page. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

FYI: I have nominated the category created by you for deletion here: [2]. I am sorry we were not able to reconcile our differeing viewpoints in a happier way. Giacomo Returned 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification, naturally I am not in agreement and have stated my objection on the page you reference. Thank you for mentioning Knole House, indeed an omission, to be included. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

• Please see this edit [3]. I realy feel that your work on Stately home was misinforming and seriously flawed - so I have redirected it. I'm sorry it had to come to this - I hope you can understand, but there are no reliable references for defiitively defining a stately home. Giacomo Returned 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your partial merger of this article into Country house has resulted in valuable sourced material being lost, i.e text of Blackwood's/Coward poetry; OED definition etc. It would be preferable if you would re-edit what you disagree with rather than deleting the whole article. For this reason I have reverted your last edit. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

• You must do what you think best for Wikipedia. Quite frankly the page is embarassing rubbish to read and it is evident that you don't have a clue what you are writing about. Giacomo Returned 20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What's best for WP is not to dump large quantities of other people's work submitted in good faith supported by valid sources, as you have attempted to do. Make judicious edits instead - and please stop your insulting remarks, thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

Now you have reversed the redirect, I have formally proposed a merge. Please discuss that in the proper place. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3