User talk:The Duke of Waltham
His Grace The Duke of Waltham
Greetings, dear Wikipedian. My name is Harold Cartwright, and I am the Duke of Waltham's private secretary. On behalf of the Duke, I should like to welcome you to His Grace's talk page.
Here you may leave notices, announcements, or any other messages that could interest the Duke, and you may flatter him, request his assistance or advice (if you really think he's able to do anything on his own), discuss his actions on Wikipedia, or talk about matters of mutual interest. As this is a free-speech venue, your criticism will be welcome as well. To be honest, I personally enjoy seeing negative comments about my employer, as his arrogance would become even more insufferable if left unchecked.
I probably need to clarify that, even though this page exists to accommodate all kinds of "talk", ranging from wiki-professional correspondence to light-hearted conversation, it is not meant for discussion of matters in any way private. Messages of sensitive content ought to be e-mailed to His Grace instead, so that the required level of privacy can be ensured (in relative terms; I still open those letters).
Please leave your posts at the bottom of this page and sign them with four tildes (~~~~), so that we shall know who is posting what and when. You are warned that unsigned posts do not merit a reply here and shall be summarily deleted; this is wholly within the poster's responsibility, I'm afraid.
Please note that His Grace follows a policy of keeping conversations unfragmented; in other words, an exchange that begins in one talk page should continue in that same talk page, in order to keep the discussion whole and intelligible. If a conversation has begun in a venue other than this, you need not answer here; you can rest assured that I shall notify the Duke about any new messages (through use of a designated watchlist).
You are requested not to edit anything in this page except for your own posts; any other changes shall be reverted on sight. It is also suggested that, if you must edit your posts, you should do so sparingly, as it is generally considered impolite to alter the content of posts that have already been answered to, or even read.
Old discussions are archived with extreme care, even though half of them do not deserve such treatment in the least. But who am I but an underpaid secretary, to be judging my boss's gossip. Well, for those interested, the archives are open to the public from 09:00 to 17:00, Mondays to Fridays.
Please don't leave any litter while you are here. There is a dustbin in the corner (where the old Signposts end up, and I couldn't care less about recycling).
By the way, thank you for not smoking.
Have a nice day, or something resembling it.
- 1 Respectful message
- 2 Humble message
- 3 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1
- 4 Prcedence: HALP, pls!
- 5 Printable loopholes
- 6 Bowing, scraping
- 7 Happy Holidays...
- 8 The humblest of entreaties
- 9 Happy Holidays
- 10 Spilling the beans
- 11 The Signpost: 11 March 2015
- 12 The Signpost: 18 March 2015
- 13 The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
- I'm afraid His Grace is on a business trip to Paris, sir, but I am sure he would wish me to convey to you his thanks—probably with many unnecessary adverbs and adjectives—as well as subtly draw your attention to the fact that he has never really stopped editing, low as his levels of activity may usually be. Personally, I agree with your unspoken point: if one is to content oneself with gnoming around, one might as well try harder. Waltham, per pro. H. Cartwright 11:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
[Curtseying.] I've been using your excellent tip here for fattening up an article I had previously created with the help of the old out of-copyright Dictionary of National Biography. My idea was to mention this to you once the article was nice and plump, but RL keeps interfering, and I'm still fussing and messing with it on a subpage, here. Still, eventually, I modestly hope my additions and corrections will produce an improved bio about a colourful character. Thank you! Bishonen | talk 12:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC).
- I'm afraid His Grace is on a business trip to... Nah, I can't do this twice in a single day. Give me a moment and I'll put him on the phone for you.
- [twelve minutes later] Apologies, madam; it appears that the Duke is currently unavailable. In any case, I recall he was very pleased that proximity to a British library is no longer necessary for free access to such a calorie-rich information resource. Being something of an expert on procrastination, I am sure he would also sympathise with your predicament, although whatever is keeping you from finishing that article is sure to be more important (and convincing) than his half-hearted excuses about his professed perfectionism.
- Now, let's see... This Jordan fellow seems interesting; his brazen publishing methods certainly remind me of some modern equivalents. I initially wondered to what extent his Royalist sympathies were influenced by something other than Parliament's decision to close down the theatres, but then it seems he may have had some political acumen. I didn't know there was a poet to the Corporation of London, though I'm not surprised to hear it... A Diurnall of Dangers, this will catch His Grace's attention: I don't think we have encountered the ancestor of the word journal anywhere before... Anyway, much more material than the century-old DNB, and the article draft seems to be making a good job of condensing and incorporating it. I am sure the Duke will be happy to read the final article when it is ready; I'll bring these things to his attention as soon as the doctor allows me. Waltham, per pro. H. Cartwright 00:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I know Eric/Malleus told you it wasn't needed to strike resolved issues - but given the length of the FAC, it probably would be best if you could. If you feel uncomfortable supporting in terms of subject matter, you're perfectly okay with supporting just from reviewing the prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I am a foreigner and a usurper (shh), but I suppose I'm growing more confident about my copy-editing abilities, especially seeing as Mr Corbett has taken most of my concerns seriously; I may still lack the experience and imagination to find better solutions for some problems, but at least I usually know good prose when I see it.
- In any case, I understand that both the striking and my partial support would help, so I have stricken my resolved points as you ask, and I'll support when all my points are satisfactorily addressed. You may, perhaps, attend to a couple of those which remain: the first one (on Valens) and the one on note "Y".
- And something else, when you have time (no hurries): does this look reliable to you? I am trying to understand this whole business about the chapel of Our Lady of the Pew in the mediaeval Palace of Westminster, and I've noticed that Our Lady of Westminster is a right mess, though I don't know if I could ever bring myself to fix it... Waltham, The Duke of 16:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the text is from the book Catholic Trivia: Our Forgotten Heritage by Mark Elvins, who looks like a decent fellow, but I could use a second opinion (whenever you have time, of course; I realise you are busy now). As part of my long-running, on-and-off Westminster project, I am working on Old Palace of Westminster at home, and I have reached the point of Edward III's great expansion of the complex. I know you are interested in Norman history, so the 14th century might fall outside this period; if not, I might ask you to have a look when I am done (in a few months, at my current rate), to see if you can spot any glaring errors in my sources or my understanding thereof. (There is already a discrepancy between at least two of my books, which refer to the Exchequer's biennial meetings, and the article Exchequer, which refers to twice-yearly meetings.) It seems unthinkable that nobody has thought to expand the coverage of Westminster Hall, one of England's most important buildings, and that the task might fall on a Greek... But then again, it took an American to write a proper article on the Norman conquest, so you know what I'm talking about. Waltham, The Duke of 13:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Rather than post at your talk page, Ealdgyth, I'll try out this useful new feature and see if you return here instead. Congratulations for the promotion of the article and apologies for not supporting; the FAC ended sooner than I expected, and my remaining concerns were not paid any further attention. Perhaps I'll have a look at the Norman conquest article when it comes to FAC. Waltham, The Duke of 20:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Prcedence: HALP, pls!
Just dropping you a note (even though you are not very active at the moment) to say that you are not the only one to have discovered the 'loophole' you mentioned in this edit. I worked that out a few months ago as well, but have only just got around to seeing if those links are used on Wikipedia. Turns out they are, currently 135 of them (as of August 2013). While looking down that list, I noticed User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2013/April, which is how I discovered the earlier post you had made. Looks like a fair number of other people use those links as well, seeing that they are used on talk pages and review pages as well. It's bizarre really that such a loophole exists. Though not half as bizarre as the dream from Drmies that started the section where you made that post! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, since I'm mentioned here, I might as well, ahem, apologize to the Duke for not having thanked him properly, much earlier. That was some dream, wasn't it. Thanks for bringing it back up. I wonder if Eric Corbett makes a better father than Malleus did. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note, Carcharoth; I do drop in at least once a week, even though I no longer have the time to edit.
- I am not particularly surprised that others know about the loophole, considering that I first discovered the ODNB's printable pages through a Google search. Those people may be few, however, if I am to judge from the numerous cries for help (and disgruntled mumblings) by editors desirous but unable to access the biographies on their own—which is why I made that post. And yet I still have misgivings about linking to such pages from articles. On one hand it provides people with the ability to read those biographies, but on the other I remain fearful that the window in question will be noticed by someone with the inclination and ability to close it. I'd feel more comfortable with the use of the printable pages by editors, as a research tool, rather than publicly on the articles themselves; unfortunately any systematic effort to remove them would probably draw attention to itself, which would defeat the point. Then again, perhaps I just like to fret about things.
- You are very welcome, Drmies. I don't often comment on Mr Corbett's talk page, and when I do my contribution is often buried under the avalanche of new posts, so I didn't think much of it at the time. Besides, I am often late at replying to comments myself, even when I am active here, which may have turned some rare visitor away from my office. I feel bad about it, but it can't be helped; my slow rhythms are not a good fit with the fast-moving times we live in. Waltham, The Duke of 12:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
His Grace's humble subject noticed His brief activity on His talk page. Said subject would like to offer his salutations and wonders whether en.WP will benefit from His greater presence in the coming months. Tony (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I wish this were possible, but my access to the World Wide Web is too limited for that, and my time on-line is generally consumed by information hunting. My daily routine has changed radically since August, you see, and it will change even more in January, when I'll (probably) start my national service, which normally lasts nine months. Not to mention that, most regrettably and somewhat inexplicably, I have become more of a recluse in the digital sphere and have generally drifted away from my established on-line contacts; I haven't been replying to my e-mails in a timely fashion for a long time indeed. Perhaps that's due to real-life demands on me, and because I spend much less time on my own now, but I can't really say. I like being here, and there's so much I'd like to do, but I simply don't know if and when I'll get to do it. Waltham, The Duke of 14:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
|Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)|
- And in return I'd like to wish you a very Happy Christmas and all the best for the New Year and your endeavours therein (from the atheist who can't ride a horse but does cycle rather a lot). I'm actually touched to be in someone's holiday-card list, given how little I've been showing my face around here. Waltham, The Duke of 20:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The humblest of entreaties
His Grace's humblest subject protests in the mildest of terms that he emailed some time ago, without reply. His Grace may find me in His junk-mail folder—no doubt where I belong, along with the Signpost notifications.
<Bows, scrapes, trips over while walking backwards in supplication.>
- My inbox is far more cluttered than this page, which partly explains why I missed your reply. I ought to have been more attentive, though. The real problem is the clutter in my head; I am acutely conscious of the fact that my e-mails rarely start with anything other than an apology for not having replied sooner. This saddens me and angers me in equal measures, yet for all my good intentions to re-establish regular communications on-line... I despair of ever achieving this goal. Waltham, The Duke of 21:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
|Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)|
Spilling the beans
- It's a fair point. I guess I didn't think it very likely that the vandal would care to check the history on who has reverted them and when (and why). Waltham, The Duke of 23:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 March 2015
- Special report: An advance look at the WMF's fundraising survey
- In the media: Gamergate; a Wiki hoax; Kanye West
- Traffic report: Wikipedia: handing knowledge to the world, one prank at a time
- Featured content: Here they come, the couple plighted –
- Op-ed: Why the Core Contest matters
The Signpost: 18 March 2015
- From the editor: A salute to Pine
- Featured content: A woman who loved kings, a king who loved angels ...
- Traffic report: It's not cricket
The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation adopts open-access research policy
- Featured content: A carnival of animals, a river of dung, a wasteland of uncles, and some people with attitude
- Special report: Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2014
- Traffic report: Oddly familiar
- Recent research: Most important people; respiratory reliability; academic attitudes