→Line of succession to the British throne: interim evasion |
Tagishsimon (talk | contribs) →Line of succession to the British throne: This isn't going away, Surtsicna. You no more get to walk away from this than you would if you'd accused a banker of fraud or a teacher of child abuse. |
||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
:::Please let me know if I can help. I'd really like to see such template used in the list(s). [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna#top|talk]]) 21:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
:::Please let me know if I can help. I'd really like to see such template used in the list(s). [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna#top|talk]]) 21:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::No luck with this so far, hence evasive proposal for the Line of succession now on that Talk page. But would prefer retaining the serial numbers there if a template device for general use emerges. [[User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] ([[User talk:Qexigator|talk]]) 22:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
::::No luck with this so far, hence evasive proposal for the Line of succession now on that Talk page. But would prefer retaining the serial numbers there if a template device for general use emerges. [[User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] ([[User talk:Qexigator|talk]]) 22:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
==Jane Percy, Duchess of Northumberland' bias accusation== |
|||
It's one thing to disagree on content, another entirely for you to make an accusation of bias. If you have any moral compass whatsoever, you will now either substantiate your accusation or withdraw it and apologise. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 22:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:It was not an attack. It was an observation. You've already distorted her words. For example, you inserted a claim that "she dismisses criticism as uninformed and bitchy", which is not what the source said. If my observation was wrong, I am sorry, but I'm not convinced that it was. I hope that you will prove otherwise. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna#top|talk]]) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::The leap you need to explain is how you get from your assertion of "not what the source said" to bias. The source said of one set of critics "Gardeners are quite bitchy, aren't they". Of another, "There was only a handful of grand English lady designers, and the bitchiness I encountered was unbelievable". These would seem to support an assertion that she dismissed critics as bitchy. How many times in one piece must we read such dismissals before we conclude that she dismisses critics as bitchy? And how, however you view my sentence construction, does it amount to bias? You have made the assertion. It is now down to you to explain yourself. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 21:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
|||
This isn't going away, Surtsicna. You no more get to walk away from this than you would if you'd accused a banker of fraud or a teacher of child abuse. Either explain how any of my actions amount to bias, withdraw the accusation, or accept that you are a deeply flawed individual lacking in the basic common courtesies. And - again as common courtesy - start using edit summaries. There really is no excuse for your behaviour. --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 13:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:05, 8 November 2012
Hello, Surtsicna, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.
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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I requested move in the case of Banate of Mačva article. May I ask you to tell your opinion? See: talk page. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I haven't been able to respond to you. I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Cindy(talk to me) 15:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Henrietta Clive, Countess of Powis
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Charlotte Percy, Duchess of Northumberland
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Mary Howard, Duchess of Norfolk (d. 1773)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Gladys Deacon
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Bitchy
The source supports the use of the word. Exactly what problem do you have with the fact that Jane has repeatedly labelled the gardening establishment "bitchy". --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:BLP. What you inserted is not covered by the source. The source doesn't say that she "dismisses criticism as uninformed and bitchy". In fact, it doesn't say anything to that effect. Surtsicna (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Constance Lewes
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes
in short. If you wanted to talk to me, the proper place was my talk page. If you want to repy to this, do so here: i now have the page on my watchlist. The cfd page is for discussion with wp editors in general. TheLongTone (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your concern, but I did not intend to chat. I am not particularly keen to avoid seeing that article deleted, as I haven't put much effort into creating it, but I wouldn't like it to be deleted without a proper reason. I may be naive, but the woman doesn't seem to be non-notable. Furthermore, she doesn't seem to be notable only due to her marriage. Let's see what others think. Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. I csd'd because the article really in my view makes no claim of real notability: theonly things she does are not remarkable: they are just the kind of things peers' wives do. If she was attracting press coverage for these activities she would imo be a great deal more notable. I've had a look at the other articles you've written, and altho I'm not really that sure whether the two later ones are truly notable (don't worry, I've no intention of afd-ing them!) they are at least interesting. This woman seems dull, which is really why I flagged it. You say you haven't given the article much effort: maybe if you did & found something solid she's done other than sling canapes about the article would pass the afd.TheLongTone (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Elgin & Elgin
No problem, Surtsicna, a mistake easily made. When I went to add your image to Mary Bruce, Countess of Elgin, I found another version of it already there. Moonraker (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure why I assumed that Charlotte's governess was the subject of the portrait. Once again, thank you for correcting me. Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Hsiao Li Lindsay, Baroness Lindsay of Birker
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
It's unclear whether you've formally approved this article, though your comments look as though it may be the case. If it is approved, can you please use the appropriate tick to show that the article is ready to go? (If not, then listing what checks or issues remain would be helpful.) Sorry to have to bother you, and thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, problem. I am sorry for causing inconvenience by forgetting to add the tick. Hopefully nobody minds. Thank you for reminding me! Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John the Good (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, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Howard, Duchess of Norfolk (d. 1773), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Latham (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) 11:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Elizabeth I
What does Strong say exactly? I don't have a copy. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Neither do I, but a quick search suggests that he does not mention Elizabeth's illegitimacy at all.[1] I haven't been able to find what he says about her being crowned by the Bishop of Carlisle. I do like the present solution very much, though. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and about this... I misunderstood you. For some reason, I thought you said her reign was considered illegitimate and decided to go with it though I didn't understand how or why. Surtsicna (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Lady Mary Grosvenor
Hello! Your submission of Lady Mary Grosvenor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 talk 18:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Line of succession to the British throne
Template instead of outright numbers.[[2]] Agreed, a template for auto-renumbering is needed-- like reflist? If I knew how, would do (un vrai naif). Can you advise where to find or how to create a template for this? If you answer here or on the article Talkpage I will see by watchlist. Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm completely clueless. It would be a great improvement, though. I tried asking for help here. Hopefully you'll have more luck (and knowledge) :) Surtsicna (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Jane Percy, Duchess of Northumberland' bias accusation
It's one thing to disagree on content, another entirely for you to make an accusation of bias. If you have any moral compass whatsoever, you will now either substantiate your accusation or withdraw it and apologise. Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- It was not an attack. It was an observation. You've already distorted her words. For example, you inserted a claim that "she dismisses criticism as uninformed and bitchy", which is not what the source said. If my observation was wrong, I am sorry, but I'm not convinced that it was. I hope that you will prove otherwise. Surtsicna (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- The leap you need to explain is how you get from your assertion of "not what the source said" to bias. The source said of one set of critics "Gardeners are quite bitchy, aren't they". Of another, "There was only a handful of grand English lady designers, and the bitchiness I encountered was unbelievable". These would seem to support an assertion that she dismissed critics as bitchy. How many times in one piece must we read such dismissals before we conclude that she dismisses critics as bitchy? And how, however you view my sentence construction, does it amount to bias? You have made the assertion. It is now down to you to explain yourself. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This isn't going away, Surtsicna. You no more get to walk away from this than you would if you'd accused a banker of fraud or a teacher of child abuse. Either explain how any of my actions amount to bias, withdraw the accusation, or accept that you are a deeply flawed individual lacking in the basic common courtesies. And - again as common courtesy - start using edit summaries. There really is no excuse for your behaviour. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)