User talk:Textorus

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Status

This Wikisloth is sleeping. Do not disturb until Brillig.

Wake me at your peril. Zzzzzz. Textorus.

Before you post a comment here, be advised:

DGAF

This user
does not give a fuck.

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to One man, one vote may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

the affected parties would still have enough power in that chamber to stop any further damage).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Tilden

Thanks for your interest in the article and for the correction to the Sydenham House link. I hadn't noticed it had been mistakenly linked to the wrong building. I would like to discuss your removal of the reference to Amalia Broden's illegitimacy, however. You describe the reference as "pedantic and dumb". I don't understand your use of either of those words in this context. As Bettley makes plain, Amalia had an extremely "complex" past, of which her illegitimacy, in the context of her times, was clearly a part. I'm not at all certain that this, and other uncertainties in relation to her social position, in a country as class-conscious as pre-war, Georgian England, were not contributing factors to the marital difficulties Tilden experienced. I appreciate we're perhaps straying into Original Research here, but I would point out that Bettley chooses to reference her illegitimacy, and her complex past, in the section of his monograph which ends with the statement that Tilden was "unable to reconcile his homosexuality with his new married state" (Page 9, Lush and Luxurious - The Life and Work of Philip Tilden). As an aside, I don't think an edit summary that describes another's editor's wording as "pedantic and dumb" quite conforms to our Civility principle. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the substantive issue. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, apologies for splitting this conversation up - in retrospect, it might have been better to have placed the whole thing on the Tilden Talk page. Secondly, thanks for your very full response - it is appreciated. Thirdly, I do indeed see the point that you make: that Tilden's homosexuality was the main, if not the only, reason for his discomfort in his marriage is almost certain; his wife's illegitimacy, or any other factor relating to her complex past life, can only have been subsidiary, at most. It remains interesting, however, not least because both Philip and Amalia were so untruthful about so much in their lives. Whilst this is understandable in the context of their times, it sheds interesting light on their psychologies, as well as making it damn difficult to write accurately about either of them! I think your suggestion of an expansion of the article, in which this can be explored further, is much the best and I shall set to this when I have time. Tilden certainly merits more than the Start article he's got, and Amalia more than a "gratuitous slur", although this wasn't my intention and I am not sure that a reference to illegitimacy would be seen as such, in our more enlightened times. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - forgot we were conducting the conversation across both Talk pages. The below reproduced from mine:

Humm, a groundplan of Chartwell. Not sure I've ever seen one, on-line or off. Have checked the two books specifically on the house that I have - Churchill and Chartwell, Robin Fedden (Pergamon Press, 1968) and Churchill and Chartwell, Stefan Buczacki (Francis Lincoln, 2007) - and neither has one. Nor do any of Sir Martin's magisterial volumes, although the companion volumes might but I don't have the one which covers 1922, the year in which Churchill purchased the house. The only other book specifically on the house that I know is the National Trust guide, written by Mary Soames, but I don't have this. NT guides frequently do have floor-plans, however, and I've just ordered the book, so, when it arrives, I'll let you know. I could probably scan and e-mail an image if there is one, but I couldn't upload it to Wikipedia as it'll be copyright. The building history is fascinating and Tilden and Churchill fell out badly over what the latter believed to be architectural shortcomings in the design and construction of the house.

Incidentally, as I write this, I am reading the following in Buczacki's book (p. 118), "In 1914 (Tilden) married, itself an awkward event for a homosexual; but it was compounded by the woman being considerably older than him and of mysterious and exotic antecedents" (my bold italics). I might just put that reference back in!, although on what Buczacki bases the statement, I don't know. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Some nice interior shots here [[1]]

And good floor-plans in the guide that came today. I can scan them but your uploading suggestions are probably beyond my very limited techinical capability. Let me know. KJP1 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Westminster system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third party (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) 09:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malta

Hi. Am not sure if I'm violating some unspoken rule not to comment here, so I apologise in advance. Anyway, I noticed you edited the Malta article because Malta is not mentioned in the Wikipedia "Treaty of Paris" article. However, the actual treaty of Paris [Wikisource: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1814)], does mention Malta at Article VII. How do you think it's best for it to be referenced?

Thanks reuv ^T 18:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Republic of Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Easter Proclamation (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) 09:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hemline theory

Hi, although the hemline theory is a very interesting one, there are probably rather more reliable sources than an old 1954 newspaper article. You could possibly add it as a link to Hemline index as that needs more references. It IS a rather niche theory, although one that catches popular imagination - but is now largely viewed somewhat skeptically. [2], [3], [4], and rather a lot of other (largely skeptical) Google hits for "hemline index". I used to believe it too, but as I've learned more about fashion history, I kinda agree that it's an urban myth. Generally, there are rather better external link candidates for the fashion articles than bitty little 60-year old newspaper clippings. Mabalu (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, respectfully pointing out (although I am surprised that an editor who has been around since 2006 needs to be told so) that edit summaries (which I just chanced to notice) naming other editors as being "out of line" and accusing them of claiming ownership are not particularly WP:Civil. Instead of simply reverting without explanation, I took the time to explain personally to you my reasons for the reversions above, including offering links to more recent sources about the subject and suggesting an alternative home for your link. I note that McGeddon (quite properly, IMO) removed the links after you reverted my edits and also suggested another alternative home for the link. Mabalu (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in your own choice of quotes: ""People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it." Mabalu (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tallahassee population

If you're still looking for a solution to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Florida#Leon County Census figures in error, you may have luck with the original censuses, linked at the top of User:NE2/incorporation. --NE2 01:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Dallas (WHEC-716), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Vincent and La Soufriere. 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) 09:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chattahoochee and Gulf Railroad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norfolk Southern Railroad. 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) 09:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Children

Bonsoir Textorus ! J'ai traduit en français l'article "Save Our Children" cet été et c'est à ce moment-là que j'ai dû laisser le message dont tu me parles. Malheureusement, j'avoue que je ne me rappelle plus de ce que j'y demandais (la honte !). En tout cas, je te remercie de ta proposition d'aide ! Et je tiens à souligner que, même s'il n'est pas parfait, ton français est très bon (et bien meilleur que mon anglais) ! Amicalement, 31.39.53.205 (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC) (fr:user:Konstantinos)[reply]