User talk:Afterwriting

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

Graham Leonard[edit]

Hello.. I noticed you made a correction in this edit. I'm sorry I'm not a native English speaker, I just want to make sure that, based on the source, valid ordination refers to the bishop not the church. I think your recent edit means that all bishop ordained under Old Catholic Church considered as valid, which is incorrect. This is a case by case basis, not all bishop of Old Catholic Church considered by RC as validly ordained. I look forward to hear your thoughts. Regards, Ign christian (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It certainly has been the case, at least until they began ordaining women, that the ordinations of the Union of Utrecht churches have been recognised as valid by the RCC. I am not aware of any of their ordinations until recent times only being recognised on a case by case basis. So I believe my edit is essentially correct. I also cannot see any difference regarding this matter between my edit and yours in which you asserted that their ordinations are valid. The problem with this is that we don't make assertions in articles about whether anyone's ordinations are valid or not ~ only about whether and by who they are recognised as valid or not. I hope this clarifies matters. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your last edit, now it has greater clarity. I agree with you, my problem is I can't construct a good phrasing as you did. :-) Thanks again, Ign christian (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Glad we could discuss this and improve things without any conflict. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


I responded to your revert on my talk page Ratel (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Singular or plural[edit]

Given that the editor concerned has made a very large number of edits to articles about bands with plural names, can I suggest that you set out your views (which which I fully agree) on some central discussion page, so that this issue can be laid to rest once and for all, rather than it having to be addressed by individual editors reverting changes on a piecemeal basis? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you have a discussion page in mind? Afterwriting (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that, given we have MOS:PLURALS, the discussion should be at WT:MOS. I see another editor is now reverting some of the changes, but reinstating some that other editors have changed back! It's very confusing... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Ghmyrtle : It's already being discussed here:
Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Church[edit]

I never said I was "honourable." That is the English spelling. I said "honorable," which is the American spelling. And I did discuss the change I was making on the article's talk page. If you would read the article's talk page you will see the entire sad history of this. One editor deleted that change and asked for a source. I found a source and retyped my change. The second editor simply deleted it. Now you have come in with yet some new reason justifying deleting my change. And I answered it.

"My highly deplorable incivility" is in reaction to having my contribution to Wikipedia being summarily deleted twice, with the goalposts moved three times. Most normal people would agree that is enough to be considered insufferable treatment. Ivain (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This applies to your comments. Afterwriting (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So you think that your patronising and gratuitous pomposity is perfectly okay then? Calling another editor a "barbarian" is probably the worst example of incivility I have had the misfortune to see on Wikipedia. And yet you have the nerve to extol yourself as being "honourable" (or whatever spelling you prefer) and try to shame others. The word "hypocrisy" does not even begin to describe your pathetic behaviour. Afterwriting (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Returned to sender -- TL:DR Ivain (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Diana and Landmines: Using wikipedia to self promote a business[edit]

An encyclopedic article should avoid using adjectives as used in the sentence "the world's oldest and largest" that is quoted from that organization's press release. It is also factually inaccurate, as there are older mine clearance organizations (in the US and South Africa, for example) and there are larger ones in operation today. This is also irrelevant to the article about Princess Diana, and does not appear next to names of other organizations she had worked with, which may also call themselves largest, oldest or best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:2:A800:A193:24FD:E5AA:4E22 (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Including such information from a press release is not a straight forward case of "using Wikipedia to self promote a business". That is a ludicrous comment. Whether the information is accurate is an entirely separate issue. In any case, I did not add the information. I also wonder why this issue is so important to you. I suspect that your motive in removing the information is not so much accuracy as something else. Afterwriting (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

London based universities[edit]

Hi, first of all compliments for your great work in improving style of Wiki articles. I have learnt a lot from your edits. Can you please quickly go through the lead paragraphs of these articles: Imperial College London, London School of Economics, University College London, Golden triangle (universities) (and King's College London as you already do), and improve style of their leads and possibly establish some ground rules regarding how we write these leads in a neutral manner. Maybe reviewing University of Oxford and University of Cambridge in this process will also be a good idea. I believe the current University College London lead is a good template for others universities to follow. Thanks. LondonMan (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look asap. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter Foster[edit]

Thanks for your improvements to the Foster page. Would you mind holding off on corrections for a day maybe? I'm in the middle of major edits to some sections, and you may have made corrections to text that is being changed. I'm trying to get it out of the way while I have time. Please feel free to return and make corrections, though. Cheers. Pallas Blade (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. No worries. Afterwriting (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, I might need another day or two. The article needs some serious work, fixing omissions and trimming the fat. Thanks again. Pallas Blade (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: CoE[edit]

Thank you for the information. However, a news media report is hardly trustworthy for the details of canon law: as a professional educator, you presumably are aware that academic work in religious studies, history, sociology would not accept a newspaper report as authoritative in such a topic. Please find an actual reliable source that provides the information stated in this paragraph. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Instead of being patronising you could instead show me anywhere in the policies or guidelines which suggest that a major British newspaper such as The Daily Telegraph is not acceptable as a reliable source. The onus is on you to justify the removal of adequately referenced information. Until you do so you are required to follow WP:STATUSQUO. Therefore the factual information has been restored to the article. Your ignorance of the Church of England is no excuse for your disruptive editing on this matter. There is no such concept of "unordination" in the Church of England. Afterwriting (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Gertrude (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) 09:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Rowan Williams[edit]

I notice you removed the link I provided to the comprehensive bibliography of Rowan Williams which I have just made available here: Please could you explain? It's the first time I've ever edited a Wikipedia article. I can appreciate that the style may not have been up to scratch but I can't see how it can be anything other than helpful to point people to a full bibliography.

Thanks for asking. A personal website of this kind, regardless of the quality of its information, is not normally acceptable for inclusion in articles either as a reference or an external link. Links to websites which require a subscription or membership to view are also not normally acceptable. The policies are at WP:ELNO. Hope this helps. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Serial Comma[edit]

The serial comma is a matter of form and not just style. Its omission would largely be seen as erroneous throughout American English. Its regular placement avoids ambiguity that its omission entails.

The section is not specifically about American English. You also cannot add your personal commentary to articles and tell people what they should think. Afterwriting (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi - if you are going to put personal comments in an edit summary undoing my edit which restored yours, maybe you should have commented when you decided to restore my edit? Or have I missed something? Doug Weller talk 13:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I was momentarily confused by your edits and edit summaries and did not understand the problem until after I had fixed it. It seemed that you were restoring a problem and justifying it with an incorrect appeal to the MOS. I've already apologised to you for this so bringing it up here is quite petty on your part. Perhaps you should have noticed my correction before you reverted it. We all make mistakes. Afterwriting (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Bailey[edit]

In reverting my edit you reduced his nationality to one nation and not three which are relevant to the roles the subject plays. you also incorrectly amended his wife's name. Culture759 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

How did I did "incorrectly" amend his wife's name? And if he has three nationalities or citizenships then this needs to be made clear in the article. None of this excuses your mass reverting of my obvious MoS corrections. Afterwriting (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Peerages, baronetcies & many other titles[edit]

@Afterwriting: You will be well aware that I have recently (almost constantly) been in battle with MOS & some of its lead advocates. However unlikely it seems to me that I can earn support from (m)any quarters on Wikipedia since almost anything I touch seems to get wholescale criticism, I note that you have attended deftly to the Wiki article about baronets, for which I am much obliged. M Mabelina (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: You'll no doubt understand why I fear doing anything too drastic to articles nowadays, but I would be happy to see that so-called quotation ("Official Roll") either deleted or reworded. M Mabelina (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Afterwriting: how canst Wikipedians & I thus for better terms. M Mabelina (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey if you have a point to make let me know - I'm here to co-operate. It's no good grassing up each other on Wiki citations, it gets us nowhere & looks a bit childish - let me know your thoughts - cheers. M Mabelina (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It was already made very clear that this section requires referencing. Removing the citation needed tag was hardly being co-operative on your part. If you want to help then stop creating problems. Afterwriting (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The so-called quote was not a quote - it had been bastardised before I saw it. In fact the whole article about baronets was a mess - I hope you can find the spirit within yourself to commend the present version? If not, just revert the whole thing whilst blaming Mabelina which is seemingly par for the course nowadays. I'd sincerely like to know a) what pleases you & b) what do you actually know about British noble families, titles, heraldry etc? M Mabelina (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is a direct quotation or not it still requires proper referencing. This is how Wikipedia works. Afterwriting (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is how Wiki should work & by the way I am or could be one of the most fervent advocates of what I think you are stating. However, what was written about baronets and so many other articles is utter nonsense & frankly if this is the quality that Wiki aspires to the whole project is going down the pan... M Mabelina (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
you only have to take a look at the articles about Lord Athlone & Lord Bessborough to see
@Afterwriting: are you responsible for "as the Knox line, have been made tenuous due to internal family dispute"? Sounds gossipy and there are definitely more substantive examples. Also who introduced the stuff about hersldic supporters? M Mabelina (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue (Mabelina (talk · contribs)) with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- MIESIANIACAL 00:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Style changes to University of Sydney[edit]

Hello, I see you have made some minor stylistic edits to the University of Sydney article. However, your recent reversion removed very significant updates to the rankings section, fixing rankings and clarity. Please make your minor stylistic changes on top of those important ranking edits. Thank you.

It is your responsibilty to correct any problems without mass reverting to a previous version and restore style mistakes in the process. Afterwriting (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Terry Wogan[edit]

You seem to stop people referring to Sir Terry Wogan as an "Irish-born British". He held citizenship for both countries, which is why he can be referred to as "Sir". If he were just Irish, he wouldn't be Sir Terry Wogan.

I really couldn't care less. The problem is that you are edit warring on an issue which is already being discussed on the article's talk page. Take your arguments there. Afterwriting (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)