User talk:HelenOnline

Fair warning: Talk page posts are not private and are kept forever. I prefer to discuss articles on the relevant article talk pages and may move discussions started here.

Nelson Mandela

Dear Helen,

Thank you for the work you've done on the Nelson Mandela page (the late, great, and honorable Nelson Mandela). I see that editing restrictions are currently in place so I'm writing you as the last contributor. As a modest suggestion, I wonder if you might agree that a link to the "List of South African newspapers" page could be appropriate. Even better, links to their respective Letters to the Editor. In that way, I believe the outpouring of support that can be expected might in some small way be enhanced. If you agree with me. I am very willing to track down those links for your review.

Sincerely,

Jim VanOpdorp

Dear Helen, Well done on your work on the Edward IV ancestry "issue" of Kate Middleton. I wonder if the information will ever be placed back in her own article? What do you think?

There were at least 2 films found in July 2013, by British Pathe which featured Kate's ancestors. The first was from 1915 and her great great grandfather Francis Martineau Lupton appears in it. Francis is part of the Mayoral entourage following his brother, Sir Charles, who is inspecting the "Leeds Pals Battalian" at a camp near Colsterdale, in the Yorkshire Dales. His brothers Arthur and Hugh are also in the entourage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/09/kate-middleton-ancestors-caught-on-film_n_3567707.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/footage-found-of-duchess-of-cambridges-ancestors--meeting-royalty-8698340.html

http://britishpathe.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/the-duchess-of-cambridges-ancestors-discovered-on-film/

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-07-09/archive-footage-shows-kates-great-great-great-relatives/

The second Pathe film is from 1927 and shows Kate's great great grandfather's brother Hugh, Lord Mayor of Leeds, and his wife Isabella, the Lady Mayoress, greeting Princess Mary in Hunslet, Leeds. Princess Mary is the current Queen's aunt.

These films were shown in the UK on the BBC Look North TV programme on the day,6.30pm, of Prince George's birth!

I do hope this helps clear things up and well done again. Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I prefer it on one page only. There is no need for the duplication, which increases article maintenance and the possibility of point of view forking.

Thanks, I figured there were two different films from different dates but they seem to have been mixed up in the text I edited?. The brotherly entourage related to the 1915 film not the 1927 film mentioned in the previous sentence. The way it was written made it sound as if the brotherly entourage related to the 1927 royal visit, which I understand is not the case. Please let me know if I am mistaken about this. HelenOnline 09:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Helen,

Good to hear from you and thanks.

It is my understanding that the 4 films were of interest to the UK media because they all relate to each other - over a period of 50 years. They all show that the four Lupton men (as well as Lady Mayoress Isabella Lupton) and also Kate's grandfather, all knew Royalty well - obviously not just in "Lord Mayoral" official capacities.

Pathe Film 1 - Kate's great great grandfather Francis is seen with his brother Sir Charles and his two other brothers, in the 1915 film. Sir Charles was Deputy Lieutenant of the West Riding of York to Princess Mary's father-in-law, Earl Harewood, who was his Lord Lieutenant. Princess Mary's (future) husband, Lord Harewood, is also apparently in the entourage but I have searched the records from Pathe and I cannot see where this idea originated from - but I agree that it is most probable. His wikipaedia entry certainly lists him as a soldier.

Pathe Film 2 - Kate's great great great uncle Hugh and his wife Isabella, are greeting and then waving "good bye" to Princess Mary, the Princess Royal in Hunslet, Leeds, in the 1927 Pathe film. This also interested the BBC as Princess Mary is Prince William's great great aunt. A magazine called "Majesty" did an article on all of this fairly new information recently. Footage and stills were also found of Sir Charles' brother-in-law, Viscount Bryce (British Ambassador to the USA) in the Library of Congress. A photo of Viscount Bryce, alongside Prince Arthur, was also in "Majesty" - a UK publication which sells world wide. I think it was also mentioned in a Daily Telegraph article too.

Pathe Film 3 - Kate's great great great aunt is seen at a huge Leeds Rememberance event - with the Great Mace of Leeds being carried before her, as Lady Mayoress, this being a "sign of Royal Authority". http://www.britishpathe.com/video/armistice-day-thousands-attend-deeply-impressive-3

Pathe Film 4 - The UK public would have been interested to see the Pathe film which shows Co-pilot Peter Middleton together with the Duke of Edinburgh in the 1962 "Tour of South America". Peter Middleton is the grandfather of Kate Middleton. The Duke is Prince William's grandfather. http://www.britishpathe.com/video/selected-originals-dukes-successful-tour-3/query/shanty

Fascinating on television to watch!

I do hope this helps. All the Best M.E.Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You're an inspiration...

I am new to Wikipedia as a writer. I stumbled onto your User Page, and is busy using it (along with a few others) to create my own. Thank you for being an inspiration to me in this regard.

How long did you take to get your User Page to where it is now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a (talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I make a link so people can message me as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a (talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I am happy to help. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes. HelenOnline 11:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Erzurum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yozer1 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One revert of an unsourced edit does not constitute edit warring. HelenOnline 16:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But that is exactly what you did, warned me of edit-warring with the first revert, before I had a chance to add the reference. Yozer1 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have asked you to read WP:BRD. I will break it down for you anyway:

• B, your initial bold edit
• R, Yerevanci reverted your unsourced edit
• [there is no D here as you skipped this step]
• R, you reverted Yerevanci and are now edit warring
• I gave you a warning to stop edit warring
• When you ignored my warning and continued edit warring, I attempted to D, discuss it on the talk page.

The talk page discussion could have been opened sooner (not that you were interested in discussing it given your deletion of the talk page discussion four times in violation of WP:TPOC). Ideally it should have been opened by you in line with WP:BRD. I have in no way prevented you from adding a source or discussing it further on the talk page. A lot of discussion has already gone into that section of the article, so it would be wise to discuss any changes on the talk page first anyway. HelenOnline 08:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am always available for discussion. However, User:Yerevanci's insistence to revert my contribution is what set me off to continue reverting. I would love to convince you of the Arabic root for the city name with sources, but do not have that much time. You may do your own research from Arabic and Turkish sources if you wish. Thank you.Yozer1 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

• 19 modifications to sources and careers, when prompted for further discussion by Frelau, and in one hour [1]
• 73 revisions to the page since the 23rd of November between you and Frelau [2]

I suggest you both re-read WP:BRD and WP:BLP. --Leptiminus (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your sources - Postmedia (Ottawa Citizen) are unfortunately not reliable. If you want to go that route, you will have to use the Departmental Website and look at expenses for Ian Wilson, Ingrid Parent and do comparison. The reports you are using are not built on any reliable sources- they do not pretend to either. These newspaper articles have been vindictive and in support of an advocacy movement recognized by Myron Grover lately on his blogpost- please check. They do not reflect the reality. The only reliable source for what you try to advance is the Privy Council Office and it has to do with personal information - retirement. No letter, no post allow you to verify if he resigned. The further you could go with this is that he left the Public service. And interestingly enough he left before Postmedia reported on expenses that, by the way, if you do not know the canadian system, are posted every quarter on the website of the institutions. This shows the vindictive and harassment Caron was a victim of by media and professional communities. It doesn't tell the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frelau (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. I am not trying to advance anything other than what is published in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. Please note that editing a Wikipedia article is strongly discouraged if you have a conflict of interest. If you have any concerns, you can post them on the talk page with reliable sources to back them up. HelenOnline 09:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I read your modifications to the LAC page as well as those made to Caron's bio. it sounds more like advocacy than being serious about reporting a balanced view. It sounds like you have a conflict of interest working on behalf of someone here. you seem to be referring in the text to what is supporting some kind of a "thesis". I will continue with your previous "warning" on truth and verifiability: The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. And: Please note that editing a Wikipedia article is strongly discouraged if you have a conflict of interest. So, please bring a balance view to the LAC's page and get Caron's bio as a bio as per define in Wikipedia guidelines.--Frelau (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC) in other words, the bios need to be bios and controversies need to be where they belong: with the institution. However, several comments where made vis a vis the fact that it was complaisant to Wilson and Caron and not reflecting the opposition from inside. True. you need a balanced view: LAC - as an institution- corporations of archivists and librarians, unions, and obviously the direction of this government.--Frelau (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a request for help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. HelenOnline 07:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)