User talk:RLamb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, RLamb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DS 23:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism?[edit]

I undid recent changes to a page I created on a 17th c. author, George Hakewill, as the new contributor (88.108.216.22) had added middle names for both him and his wife, and I think he/she did this without basis in fact. (Hakewill is not shown to have a middle name in any biographical dictionary, in contemporary references, on the title page of his works or in the signature on his will. Middle names were very rare at this period - I only know of three persons who used them - and for two people with middle names to find and marry each other sounds pretty fluky to me.) When I checked, over a very short time the same contributor appears to have made a series of similar minor changes to several pages covering a wide range of topics - adding middle names, changing dates and numbers by one digit etc. Is this deliberate vandalism, and should I report it? Or should I have left a message on the contributor's page before I undid his/her contribution? RLamb (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

William Peryam - reference to third wife[edit]

{{help me}}

I feel as if I am just learning to talk...Can someone help with this: if a woman has been married three times, how do I identify her? By her maiden name? If so, and her maiden name coincides with that of another entry in Wikipedia, how do I distinguish between them? In the article on Sir William Peryam I would like to point out that he married Sir Francis Bacon's eldest half-sister Elizabeth. But if I put 'Elizabeth Bacon' the link redirects to a page on Elizabeth Bacon Custer.

I hope this is the correct page to raise this?

RLamb 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)RLamb

Normally, you'd use the name by which someone is most commonly known in English (for instance, George W. Bush for the current American president); see the naming conventions. If there's an article at that name already, you need to disambiguate the articles; the process can be a bit complicated, so I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation) instead of me trying to describe it here. And yes, your user talk page is the correct place for a {{helpme}}; you can also ask questions at the Help Desk if you prefer (helpmes will send you a new message when your question is answered, though, and you'll have to check back to the helpdesk if you try there). I hope that helps! --ais523 09:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation[edit]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Help Me Request[edit]

{{helpme}}

Hi there, please provide us with information about what you require help with. Thanks, -- The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, all taken care of. Happy editing!`--omtay38 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't got the hang of this at all yet. I hope I am posting my request in the right place now. It's this:

I just undid recent changes to a page I created on a 17th c. author, George Hakewill, because the new contributor (88.108.216.22) had added middle names for both him and his wife, and I think he/she did this without basis in fact. (Hakewill is not shown to have a middle name in any biographical dictionary, in contemporary references, on the title page of his works or in the signature on his will. Middle names were very rare at this period - I only know of three persons who used them - and for two people with middle names to find and marry each other sounds pretty fluky to me.)

When I checked, over a very short time the same contributor appears to have made a series of similar minor changes to several pages covering a wide range of topics - adding middle names, changing dates and numbers by one digit etc. Is this deliberate vandalism, and should I report it? Or should I have left a message on the contributor's page before I undid his/her contribution? RLamb (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Distasteful?[edit]

{{help me}} I was adding to the Thomas Nashe page and put in something about the content of his erotic poem, A Choise of Valentines. Have I been too detailed? It's difficult to know how to inform without offending.RLamb (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Charles Fitzgeoffrey[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Charles Fitzgeoffrey, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Fitzgeoffrey. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alexius08 (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work on The Fated Sky[edit]

Hi. I'm the editor that originally tagged this article as needing expansion and links (and have since removed those tags). I've added a book info-box which you can feel free to add new information to that (e.g., number of pages). Also, I may not get around to adding them, but there are a number of book reviews out there (at least three) that could be mentioned in this article. In any case, just wanted to say keep up the good work. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the encouragement! I'm not a sufficiently frequent contributor to Wikipedia to edit fluently or well yet. I notice there is another book called 'The Fated Sky' referred to elsewhere, an autobiography - should I create a disambiguation page (and if so, how)? Also, should I enter Henrietta Branford's name in the Branford disambiguation page (and if so etc..)

RLamb (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should go ahed and enter Henrietta Branford in the Branford disambiguation page. There's no law one way or the other about doing that, so I recommend just thinking "does this make sense?" and say "yes, it makes sense." For me, authors are often referred to by their surname alone, so adding them to a disambiguation page should be no problem.
I wouldn't worry about a disambiguation page for the book until the work you mention with the same title(The Fated Sky) actually gets its own wikipedia article. Once it does (which you could do!), then a disambiguation page makes sense. There is a LENGTHY and WORDY wikipedia page on disambiguation that makes my head hurt. However, if you were to try to create a disambiguation page I'd simply use existing examples as sort of a template (e.g., Tilford (disambiguation). If you do something wrong, it's not the sort of thing that's a hanging offense. Best case scenario is you do it and it's accepted; worst case is someone fixes it up.
Probably the most useful thing I want to stress is the use of the book info-boxes if you're going to contribute or edit articles regarding books. Often there is incomplete information in an existing info-box and that can be a nice way to contribute easily. Also, for new articles about a book, the info-box adds a bit of weight to the article and makes it less likely to come under deletion scrutiny. I've won some "save the book article" battles and lost some. What can I say, I'm a librarian!
I say this in seriousness AND good humor: You've obviously mistaken me for someone who knows what's going on! Be fearless, be thick skinned, drink lots of coffee, and have a sense of humor. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Good Dog[edit]

The Good Dog

A contributor has added a negative opinion on the merits of this book. This seems as if it ought to be allowable, but the comment is incoherent and - well, ain't no near-sighted man can tell it from vandalism. Should it be removed? RLamb (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. For starters, contributions should slavishly adhere to neutral points of view. If someone wants to say something negative (or positive), that's bad. If they cite a third-party source saying something negative (or positive) that's good. Quoting a review that says "this book is boring" (again, quoting a review) is fine. Actually just editing the article to include a personal opinion, not so good.

What you pointed out was just vandalism, pure and simple, and I've removed it.

Feel free to remove things like that on your own and in good faith, and nobody should be upset with you. Be bold!

Again, thanks for the "heads up" on this! --Quartermaster (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Witton Church images[edit]

It's an excellent set of photos you've added to Commons - too good to be overlooked. For a start I've never liked the photo in the infobox and suggest you replace it with yours of the exterior (although even that's a bit cloudy - perhaps another one on another day?). There is certainly room for one of the photos in the body of the article - your choice; advice is at MOS:IMAGES. I am generally not a fan of galleries, but because of the variety and quality of your images, there could be a good case for adding one to this article - policy guidance is at WP:IG. Hope this is helpful. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've incorporated your image of one of the bells [File:StHelenWittonBelfry1.JPG] into a changeringer's Userbox: {{user:Martin of Sheffield/Userboxes/ChangeRinger}} Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Stub of Cool White[edit]

Hi, RLamb :) The only thing I know how to do is blank the whole page; my understanding was that page deletes ought better to go through a mod, senior editor, or at least someone with more than passing knowledge of Wikipedia. Someone like yourself :) As such, I do not blank or delete pages, and I'd rather not mess about with a disambiguation page; I suppose I could put a link there, but the tree of sources is a mite confusing, as you've explained. I can create a basic page, copy a table or whatever if I need to insert one, edit text in prose and table form, and do stubbing and some basic banners (notability, doesn't cite references, needs inline references, current event, etc). The penultimate is my current mission; not nearly enough stubs have been identified. If you feel you should delete any of the pages in question, or merge them or whatever, by all means do it. You seem to be all over it- which is great. I'm a guy with a decent mind who likes to do nice things in the spirit of αγαπη; I'm one of those Wiki angels or whatever you call us who do our small but useful things within our abilities. Cesium_133 (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Farhan, Emir of Loheia[edit]

Tagging You don't need to do anything. Looking at this article, it looks like a fine, well-sourced start. The tag that I added to the talk page is {{WikiProject Yemen}}, which marks it as a part of WikiProject Yemen. It is not the same as a maintenance tag like {{Moreref}}, which is added to the article itself (rather than the talk page), indicating a problem with the article. Please respond on my talk if you have any more questions. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit revision[edit]

Okay that's fine I normally avoid making that mistake with the unmodernized language exceptions but I do appreciate correction when I mess up. Thanks! Demokratickid (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Carleton[edit]

Good job on the article. Can you please add page numbers to the book cites? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The page numbers are perfect. I deleted one quote in the footnotes that was basically the same as what you said in the text. You don't need both. Nice work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tim added a pretty picture. Now it looks like a neat little article. BTW, User:Tom Reedy says hello. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Delighted to have added the pic. I happened to spot Ssilvers's edits (I stalk him relentlessly) and followed them up accordingly. This is a fascinating little article - and really rather sad. Tim riley (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

peice (26) => piece[edit]

I have corrected what appear to be 26 occurances of peice to piece of which you point out that 1 appears to be an invalid correction due to it being a say 16th century text. Tabletop (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bals des victimes[edit]

That is an interesting quote, and may be the origin of the whole myth. It's pretty certainly a joke, it seems to me. Good work digging it up! (I must say, that article is almost as much of an embarrassment as Yefim Smolin.) Languagehat (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rock-paper-scissors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meiji (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) 13:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Curly quotes[edit]

I just wanted to say that I hadn't looked deeper at the "curly quotes" issue than their mere existence. I don't want you to think that I am implying copyright violations on your part. In the past I have seen them associated with careless copy&paste jobs directly from other web sources, but I accept your explanation at face value. I apologize if my comment on that topic concerned you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Diana Johnson image[edit]

Hi. Can you take a look through the permissions on the commons for this image and let me know what ou think. I have a number of concerns that permission has not actually been received for it's use - which isn't unusual for images uploaded by socks of Marquis de la Eirron. It seems that images on the National Archives need specific permissions to be granted - yet whether this image has actually been released under the OGL isn't clear. I'll take a more detailed look later, but it seems to me T&T there's some doubt - more recent government stuff released under the OGL I have less issues with, but NA stuff isn't necessarily in that situation. Ta Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Baartman[edit]

I stumbled upon quite the sockpuppet ring adding massive amounts of questionably sourced information to a few feminism articles. I restored to the article to before they started messing with it but I noticed you did a lot of work on the article. Feel free to revert me entirely if you feel the article was in good shape or add back parts as you see fit. Thank you! Brandon (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Bartley (comedian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Tobin (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) 09:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Enterprise (slave ship)[edit]

Hi, I'd been hoping to find references to some other "seizures," but none so far. This event appears so often in Bermuda history as a unique one, it does not look as if others occurred. I think your article is ready to go to the Main Pages; others may add, improve, change there. Have you created a hook for the "Did you know..?" announcements of new articles? It's a good way to drive traffic to one. Must be done within 5 days of posting a new article.Parkwells (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Enterprise (slave ship), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Times Digital Archive[edit]

I noticed you used several Times articles, apparently from the Digital Archive, in the Enterprise article. If you're using the Firefox browser (related to Thunderbird), you can easily copy the url for any online article from the top of the page, where it appears in the toolbar. Otherwise, you can go to History/Show history/ through most browser toolbars, for a listing of urls and articles consulted. You can copy the url from the second level of more detailed listings (or so it is on mine.) Good luck.Parkwells (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Congrats[edit]

on B start for Enterprise!Parkwells (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh I think we both know who earned the B. But when time allows I shall really try to understand what makes the difference between reasonable and good.RLamb (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Breakfast!.jpg
Hello, RLamb.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


Villikins[edit]

Hi. I looked at the article. It looks like a good start. I must admit that I don't focus on song articles. If you have more specific questions, I'll certainly try to answer them. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Villikins and his Dinah, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, RLamb. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Dear RLamb, thank you for your help with my article! Much appreciation, Jwyj (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Villikins and his Dinah[edit]

Sorry for the later response, I've been living in a tent -- this looks interesting! You've already filled this article with a lot of content, I'll comb through it and see if I can put anything in musicological terms better than you already have. Cheers! Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 14:26, 13-08-2013 UTC 14:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, piece by piece:
"Members of the “Villikins” tune family..."
Variations of the melody to Villikins and his Dinah, and songs which are very similar to it, may be thought of as a family of related tunes.
"...are most easily spotted by the introductory tonic..."
These tunes can be easily distinguished in that they all begin on the same note, the tonic, which is the root note of the musical key in which the tune is written, and serves as a sort of reference point for all of the other notes contained within each melody respectively. (aside: to the casual listener, beginning a piece on the tonic sounds familiar and simple harmonically.)
"...then the outline of the major triad..."
The introductory tonic is followed by a major triad, which is a simple three-note chord; the root note of this chord (the lowest note it contains and the reference for all the other notes on top of it) is also the tonic. These notes are not played simultaneously (on top of one another, "vertical harmony"), but one after in sequence ("horizontal harmony") from lowest to highest, thus creating an "outline" of the major triad instead of playing the notes together as a chord. This triad is major, as opposed to minor/diminished/many other types of chords. (aside: major chords are by far the most frequently heard in popular music, and generally have a cheerful/upbeat air to them.)
"...in the first bar(s)..."
Most Western music is divided into bars, or measures, which count out beats and to some extent dictate and organize rhythm. In "Villikins," the major triad which follows the introductory tonic will occur in the first bar or so.
"...and the repeated fifth that follows immediately"
The highest note in the major triad is a fifth up from the tonic -- this is just a way of counting note value relative to their reference note, if you're curious as to how they are counted check out the intervals article -- and this note is repeated immediately after the triad finishes its ascent.
You can see all of this in action at the Mudcat site you linked to. If you look at the sheet music at the bottom of the page, you will see the first two notes are the same -- these are the tonic. They occur in the first bar, which you can identify by the vertical rule. After that, it is played once more, and followed by two more notes which rise up in pitch at a uniform rate. These three notes, including the tonic, are the tonic's major triad. These occur in the second bar. Finally, the highest note in the triad is played again at the start of the third bar -- that is the repeated fifth which follows immediately. Let me know if any of this is out of your reach and I'll try to explain it over!
What the author seems to be saying is: there have been many different renderings of this popular song. Variations of the song generally have one thing in common, which is a simple introductory motif, which as the properties I have described. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 16:07, 23-08-2013 UTC 16:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
If you want to scan the Cray page(s) in question which give melodic analysis, perhaps I could write them into the article myself? I don't have access to the book or a music library at the moment, unfortunately -- graduating sucks! Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 19:44, 23-08-2013 UTC 19:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - I think it would be best if you could write it up yourself, since you seem able to understand it. I haven’t actually seen the Cray book in print though, just searched it on Google Books. He has ten hits for Villikins, but I only looked at the ones on pages 166-168. Even those baffled me in places; but I think they're the pages where he's discussing where the tune came from, and where it went.RLamb (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Robson[edit]

I'm glad it was helpful. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Oddingley Murders[edit]

Hello RLamb,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Oddingley Murders for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)