Charles681
Welcome
edit
|
Pease family
editThan ks for your corrections and additions to articles on the Pease family and Alfred Fox. Vernon White . . . Talk 16:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Pease baronetcy
editJoseph was the heir presumptive to Alfred, because Alfred could, theoretically, have married and fathered a son at any time before his death, which would have displaced Joseph. Choess (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've worked my way around this by dropping the "heir" language and simply noting Sir Joseph's present situation. (Undisputed inheritor of the baronetcy, but not yet officially enrolled.) I take it you are the heir apparent to your father? Choess (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your recent contribution. And well done to your father (if it is he). Generally it is helpful if you can add third party references. I assume in this case it is the Roll as at today's date. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Quaker family banks
editPerhaps we could have a category - [[Category:Quaker family banks]]. I expect the article Overend, Gurney and Company could benefit from the attention of someone who understands Quaker family banks Vernon White . . . Talk 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Have you got access to Milligan's Biographical dictionary of British Quakers in commerce and industry? Vernon White . . . Talk 22:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Pit Corder
editHi Charles681, and thanks for your edit to the Pit Corder article! Actually, we don't need the reference from Bootham Old Scholars Association, as Boothams is already mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry. At first I removed it, but then I thought better of myself after finding its entry in WorldCat. That means it has actually been published which is a requirement for us to use it as a source on Wikipedia. (You can check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for the policy details.) Is that the right edition, by the way, and do you have a page number? We prefer precise citations on Wikipedia so that it's as easy as possible for other editors to check facts. Also, if you're interested in improving the article, let me know and I can email you some relevant resources. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Stradivarius, I think it important that the Bootham Old Scholars published records are used..... the first edition was printed in 1914, the second in 1935, the thrird in 1971 and the current edition dates to 2011. They are a cumulative record, though detailed biography tends to be reserved for those attending the school within the years that separate the most recent and the current editions. I possess the last three editions. Given that the volumes are laid out in an alphabetical order, I don't think that anyone who can read, need have a requirement for a page reference. My interest is not simply that I attended Bootham School, like Pit Corder.. or indeed other members of my family..... I am trying to restore and further qualify a record that was deleted by someone else, who I believe was badly motivated. Pit Corder was, like members of my own family a Quaker; he was also a distant cousin. Kindest Regards Charles681 (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I agree that a page number isn't necessary if the entries are alphabetical. When you say "a record that was deleted", do you mean a Wikipedia article that was deleted? If you like, I can take a look at the situation and advise you on the best course of action. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The original list of those who had attended Bootham School was moved in March into its own category area. Unfortunately, I had listed a number of people on the old page and failed to add source references to the entries. So the error was mine and then, someone decided to delete the entrants I had submitted, on that account alone. It annoyed me that their criteria, if applied properly, should, without prejudice, have caused them to delete almost all the entries that were there at that time, but they did not. So now I am repeating the exercise and making up for my past failing.... and theirs!! I am most grateful to you though. Kindest Regards Charles681 (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I see the problem. First of all, I can assure you that the user who removed the names, User:Moonriddengirl, certainly wasn't badly motivated. That is actually the personal account of Maggie Dennis, Senior Community Advocate at the Wikimedia Foundation. She does a lot of work cleaning up copyright violations, and it looks like she removed the alumni section, because it was unsourced, while she was dealing with the unrelated copyright violation in the history section. Removing material without inline citations is actually encouraged by Wikipedia's verifiability policy, as it helps us to verify that what any given statement in Wikipedia says is accurate. So there is nothing unusual about Maggie's actions at the Bootham School article. This also means that it is perfectly fine for you to restore the section, as long as you give inline references after each of the alumni. Also, I would stick to populating the list with people who have Wikipedia articles, as otherwise the list might become unmanageable (and it was already quite big before it was removed). If any other editors disagree with restoration, or to other edits that you make to the list, you can discuss it on Talk:Bootham School until you find a consensus on what to include. Hope this helps, and please feel free to ask if you have any questions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The advice is well taken and I am appreciative. Thank you. Kindest Regards Charles681 (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 21
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Hutchinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St John's College (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) 09:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
edit
Hello, Charles681. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
edit Hello, Charles681. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)