User talk:Ordurac

Hello Ordurac! Welcome to Wikipedia! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

At Wikipedia, it's polite to explain why changes have been made. I'll be happy to discuss why I reverted your edits to Henry Francis Lyte on the article discussion page. In fact, I'd be happy to help you with any technical aspects of the encyclopedia that you may have questions about. All the best,John Foxe (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Search of Visitation of England and Wales, Volume 5, 1897

A quick search of my copy of 'Visitation of England and Wales, Volume 5, 1897' does not turn up that info concerning Henry Francis Lyte; there are Lytes mentioned, but not him specifically. Would you care to point out a page number so that I can research it further ? You must be precise when citing sources, Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

See page 153, Henry Francis Lyte is mentioned.

Here's what I'm seeing on page 153. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Hf yte info.png

This is not a private source

Is the source still in print and/or available at a typical college or university library? Better still, is it mentioned or cited in a secondary source that is readily available? The problem with using old volumes such as the one quoted above is the difficulty in verification. Please note I'm not trying to cast aspersions on either the source or the editor; I'm concerned with whether the material can be independently verified without having to travel to the Rare Books department at Oxford University or something. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

HF Lyte

John Foxe

Please kindly resist your obsessive compulsion to remove facts regarding HF Lyte from his wikipedia page. You are denying wikipedia valuable information and you are not 'wiki police' as you seem to have appointed yourself wrongly as such.

As a descendant of HF Lyte, I have inherited all of his personal unpublished papers and therefore I am more educated on the man than yourself. I know for a fact that Thomas Lyte originated from Lytes Cary Manor and the family moved out of there due to failing fortunes. Sir Henry Maxwell-Lyte (HF Lyte's grandson) was head of the Lyte's formally of Lytescary in succession from his grandfather. HF Lyte was the head of the family and there it was his family seat, HF Lyte therefore had huge connection to the manor dating back to the 13th century. See page 153 volume 5 of Visitation of England and Wales, 1897. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ordurac (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are in fact a descendant of the subject of this article, you may be editing with a conflict of interest. Further, you may have access to reference material not readily available to the general public, which makes it difficult at best to verify using secondary sources. --00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Henry Francis Lyte. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nem1yan (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. You are currently several reverts past being in violation of the three-revert rule. As noted above, being right is not an acceptable reason to continue with your reverts. However, I am please to see that you are communicating with another editor regarding the issue. I recommend you move this discussion to the article's talk page (here) where the issues and supporting materials can be presented and the involved editors can work towards consensus. Please also take a look at WP:dispute resolution which describes several techniques and mechanisms that may be useful.

Please also be informed that any further reverts on the article will result in suspension of editing privileges for edit warring. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to satisfy my own curiosity: how many reversions 'past being in violation' is this editor going to be allowed before he is sanctioned ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A measured approach often brings better results. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Ordurac. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. There is certainly an issue of civility involved here, but it should be taken to WP:WQA or WP:ANI, not simply removed. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Henry Francis Lyte. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Hello again. Please read carefully. You have had your editing privileges temporarily suspended because you have continued to edit the article after being warned that your actions were considered WP:edit warring and because you have not followed earlier instructions to take your issues to the article's talk page. When your block expires, please direct your efforts to discussing your proposed changes on the article's talk page (click here) as previously requested. (Note that you will not be able to edit anything except your own talk page until the current block expires.) Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and regardless of whether or not you are right, you are not going to accomplish much unless you are willing to work with the other editors through talk page discussions. You will likely find that other editors will listen to you comments if presented with supporting evidence and you show a willingness to listen to the responses of other editors. Further edits to the article without obtaining a consensus via the talk page will result in further suspension of your editing privileges. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)