User talk:Danbarnesdavies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk:Danbarnesdavies
Wikipedia Metawiki Commons Wikiquote Wiktionary
Archives
Vol. I Vol. II Vol. III Vol. IIII Vol. V
Jul 2005–Jul 2006 Aug 2006 Sep–Oct 2006 Nov 2006–Jan 2007 Feb–Apr 2007
Vol. VI Vol. VII Vol. VIII Vol. IX Vol. X
May 2007 Jun–Jul 2007 Aug–Dec 2007 Jan–Mar 2008 Apr–Jun 2008
Vol. XI Vol. XII Vol. XIII Vol. XIV Vol. XV
Jul–Sep 2008 Oct–Nov 2008 Dec 2008–May 2009 Jun 2009–May 2010 Jun 2010–Jan 2011
Vol. XVI Vol. XVII Vol. XVIII Vol. XIX Vol. XX
Feb–Jul 2011 Aug–Nov 2011 Dec 2011–Jan 2012 Feb–Mar 2012 Apr–Jul 2012
Vol. XXI Vol. XXII Vol. XXIII Vol. XXIV Vol. XXV
Aug–Oct 2012 Nov 2012–Mar 2013 Apr–Jul 2013 Aug–Nov 2013 Dec 2013–Apr 2014

Contents

Disambiguation link notification for May 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Diocese of Norwich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Reepham
Diocese of Oxford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bishop of Dorchester

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Danbarnesdavies. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Marie of Romania/GA1[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Marie of Romania to good article status.
Marie of Romania, an article to which you have contributed, has been listed as a Good Article. Keep up the good work! SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diocese of Oxford 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:
  • | archdeacons = [[Karen Gorham]], [Archdeacon of Buckingham]]<br />[[Martin Gorick]], [[List of Archdeacons of Oxford|Archdeacon of Oxford]]<br />Hedley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of Northampton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santi Marcellino e Pietro (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) 08:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Danbarnesdavies. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

House of Plantagenet[edit]

You added some women to the familiy tree which in itself was a good idea but you also added an error e.g. Beauforts were decendents from John rather than Edmund. If you were editing in this space and felt like it the Beaufort descent to Henry VII is probably useful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have fixed that. Whoops! Dan BD 08:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

B/I topic ban[edit]

Howdy Dan. Would you & Steven Zhang, please consider lifting my B/I topic ban? I'm no longer interested in political battles on those articles. PS: I've noticed that it's been deleted from WP:Editing Restrictions (April 4, 2014), but not certain why. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Have I offended you, Dan? GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Sorry, just been busy. This section makes me wonder a little whether lifting restrictions might not be the wrong message right now. I wonder what Steve thinks? I am tempted to say ask again in two months. Dan BD 20:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
There was no 'hidden agenda' from me, at that RM. I was rather looking for a compromise for both sides. It likely wasn't going to get traction & I had no intentions of pushing for it. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, I accepted IIO's advice & chose to 'delete' my posts at the RM-in-queston, thus removing myself from it. In the past (before the Site Ban), I most likely would've lost my temper with IIO. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay all. I'd have to agree with Dan at this stage (I was surprised to hear your site ban was lifted, welcome back) but at this stage I wouldn't agree with lifting the topic ban. Too soon. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
A tad dissapointed (after 2+ yrs), but atleast I tried :) GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears that you & Steven are in error. According to WP:RESTRICT, my B/I topic-ban expired on April 3, 2014. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
PS: Thanks for both your help in reforming my behaviour at those articles. It feels good to have one less restriction on my head :) GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anglican Church of Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archbishop of Melbourne (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) 08:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dean and Chapter of Westminster
added links pointing to Christ Church Cathedral, John Wynne, Bishop of Calcutta and Edward Willes
Sub-Dean
added a link pointing to Minister

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of Oxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishop of Dorchester. 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) 09:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Albany County, New York 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:
  • | named for = Prince James, [[Duke of York]] and [[Duke of Albany|of Albany]] (later [[James II of England|King James VII of Scotland & II of England]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Herbert Croft (bishop) 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:
  • of the [[New York]] colony appointed by the [[Duke of York]] and [[Duke of Albany|of Albany]] (later King [[James II of England|James II & VII]].<ref>She was also the great granddaughter of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Gauden 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:
  • his execution. In 1693 further correspondence between Gauden, Clarendon, the [[Duke of York]] (later [[James II of England|James II & VII]], and Sir [[Edward Nicholas]] was published by [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

New templates[edit]

I have nominated some of your recent creations for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 12#Single dukes. Per Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Properties, navboxes should not be too small. Generally, templates with four links or less are deleted because typically all the articles on the navbox are already linked in the text of each article or can easily be placed in "See also". DrKiernan (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. No worries. Dan BD 10:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You might've let me know about the proposed Glos & Ed moves. Dan BD 10:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh (father), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh. 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) 09:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent royal duke moves[edit]

You recently moved the articles on the Dukes of Gloucester and Edinburgh on the grounds that they were both called "Prince William" rather than their full names "Prince William Henry" and "Prince William Frederick". And yet you've split off new articles on the dukedoms of York and Albany, Kent and Strathearn, Cumberland and Teviotdale, Clarence and Avondale, etc - despite the fact that their holders were called Duke of York, Kent, Cumberland, Clarence, etc, rather than by their full titles. Seems a bit of an inconsistent approach to me. Opera hat (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Along similar lines, you have moved (for example) the Dukes of Gloucester and Edinburgh to their own newly-created page of that name, and off the page for Duke of Edinburgh etc. You do know, don't you, that such people were never created Duke of "Gloucester and Edinburgh," but rather were simultaneously created "Duke of Gloucester" and "Duke of Edinburgh."
I'm only marginally around, but I would have advised against this move if I had seen you consulting the community before making such sweeping changes. Did you do so? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I was too WP:BOLD. Having gone back to primary sources (the Gazette), I now see that whether each had one or two dukedoms is not completely clear. I'll start a discussion (probably at Talk:Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom?) soon so we can all reach a consensus. Dan BD 13:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I very much appreciate the enthusiasm behind your WP:BOLDness, and I even more appreciate the humility in this reply. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia on this topic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Email received[edit]

Not strange, merely forethought for the inevitable. Thanks. Hope your studies go well. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diocese of Chichester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Portsmouth. 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) 09:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diocese of Winchester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whitchurch. 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) 09:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Butler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Talbot. 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) 09:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

W H Painter - challenge to your recent move[edit]

Hi, I'm afraid I'm not a sufficiently experienced Wikipedian to know the protocols for making or, more especially, challenging page moves. I would like to disagree with the change you made today in moving William_Hunt_Painter to Hunt_Painter, and query the basis on which this was done, if I may? I'm not quite sure how best to present the evidence to you for this challenge, or whether it's best done here or on the Talk page. Perhaps you could advise. As a reknowned botanist, W.H.Painter is known by those initials, as his herbarium labels and title page to his 1889 "A contribution to The Flora of Derbyshire" by THE REV. W.H.PAINTER, 1889, both demonstrate. (His capital letters, not mine) Now, I do accept he put his name as "W.HUNT PAINTER" at the bottom of his preface to that book, but having referred to it myself continuously over the last 20 years whilst preparing to publish a brand new Flora of Derbyshire (containing quite a large biography of Painter) it's something I only actually noticed today after seeing your change! It was quite a suprise. But his is not a double-barrelled surname, and I have never seen him referred to just as Hunt Painter before. (I note that name is used within the article, but it was certainly not used by me when I first created the page on Painter) The Stirchley Church website uses Painter's full name, too (http://stirchleychurchandrectorysalop.jimdo.com/the-rectors/), as do the online herbaria websites containing his specimens (http://herbariaunited.org/wiki/William_Hunt_Painter)

Whilst Painter may well have used his middle name Hunt in preference to William, I don't feel there is sufficient evidence of him being widely known as Hunt Painter to support your change. It's akin to the page on UK botanist Arthur_Roy_Clapham being changed to Roy_Clapham when all botanists who knew him understood that he preferred to be called 'Roy'. Despite that, all references to his publications - and indeed all those of Painter, always use both initials. I believe the change you have made is misleading, and I would like to request its re-instatement. Parkywiki (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Pity there is no reply. I do know that you are an expert on this guy and less expert sources like Google agree that the first word he used in his name was William. I see there is a ref to a "Hunt Painter" at Oxford Reference but he lived several thousand years earlier. I intend to revert. Victuallers (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, whoa. Victualers: I am not obliged to reply immediately to any posts, thank you. Parkywiki: There is no need to request anything. If you know better – and it seems like you do – then revert the move yourself. Dan BD 19:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Colin James (bishop)
added a link pointing to Producer
William James (bishop)
added a link pointing to Durham

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Brooke Westcott[edit]

Dan, I have read the 1911 Encyclopaedia text which seems largely to have been copied across without giving it a more NPOV. If you go to my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bashereyre there is an e-mail link in a user box which you could use to be a bit more specific about exactly which parts you would like me to consider revising.Bashereyre (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally think it requires revision – it's just that it's been hatnote'd. Dan BD 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bishop of Oxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishop of Dorchester. 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) 13:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

George James Cholomondeley[edit]

Hi Dan,

With uncanny precision you have exposed the one large gap in my Clergy List/Crockford's access. I have a CD of all clergy ordained in 1864, 1908 and 1929 plus books for 48,52,60,68,76, 82, 88, 01 and 09. Portsmouth Central Library have Clergy Lists for 1841, 1864, 1884, 1901, 1917, 1913, 1933, 1941 and 1956: it is inscribed in each of these that someone at the library in 1960 opted to keep only every 5th one; so a lot were either dumped or sold! So the venerable gentleman was not appointed by 1884 and had died by 1908. The 1901 would have had it, which is why every so often you will see I update my lists as I keep a running list of possible gaps: it costs £3.70 return on the train from where I live. To think I used to work 2 mins from that Library (1986-91)

All the best,

Basher

Bashereyre (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Crikey. Dan BD 17:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of Rochester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rochester. 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) 15:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WHH[edit]

Please see my note at Talk:William Holden Hutton. Please use WP:RM to move the article in future. Thanks. Solomon7968 15:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

List of bishops in the Church of England[edit]

Hi Danbarnesdavies. You reverted in the List of bishops regarding Nicholas Baines. I think its not true what you are saying. There is no reason why the seniority of Baines as Bishop of Bradford should not count. I am of this opinion since he retired as Bishop of Bradford but did not do any changes because I had no source for it. But now it seems that the House of Lords is of the same opinion then I am:[1] There are other examples too, when seniority continues as the diocese changes. Kind Regards --Dangermouse600 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies; I did not see that source. It has rather surprised me, though, since Lords Spiritual are reckoned on seniority of continuous service in mainland diocesan sees and Baines was not in any see from 20 April til 8 June and thereby went to the back of the queue. (Something his new diocese were keen should happen, so that they would not 'lose him' to Lords duties soon.) I am rather inclined to think that whoever updates parliament.uk has made a mistake and overlooked this, but I'm not 100%. I guess I'll be convinced when I see Hansard record his Introduction to that Chamber. Dan BD 00:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, House of Lord often isn't easy to understand. But parliament.uk was always correct when something was published. Nicholas Baines seemed to be aware of what was coming since July:[2] You mention Hansard. Do you know where to get Hansard-records newer than 2005 online? --Dangermouse600 (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Recent Hansard is here: [3] I'm less convinced Baines 'went to the back of the queue' now, since the most authoritative source for 'how it works', the Bishoprics Act 1878, $5 could certainly be interpreted several ways. I'll un-revert on the strength of the parliament.uk source. Sorry about that. Dan BD 10:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of Stoke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandon. 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) 10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

074 Frontal d'altar de Mosoll, els Reis d'Orient.jpg Happy Holidays
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 15:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Bishop articles[edit]

Please stop redirecting these articles in ways which are contrary to the Manual of Style. You already know what it says on this matter so respect it. Afterwriting (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Concur - M Mabelina (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Who are you to question these facts ? Bowdon is where the Bishop's Lodge is & qv. Crockfords..

Speedy deletion nomination of Jim Leftwich[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jim Leftwich requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. James (TC) • 12:04 PM • 01:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete declined. BencherliteTalk 01:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Francis and Clement[edit]

User talk:Bashereyre#Frederick Halliwell

Brother Michael[edit]

Hi. I've noticed you've moved Reginald Fisher (bishop) to Brother Michael, but I think it may be better to move the page to Michael Fisher (bishop). If you take a look at Basil Hume's page, you'll see he was born as George Haliburton Hume, but when he joined Order of Saint Benedict he took the religious name Basil. When Hume was created a cardinal, he was commonly known as Cardinal Hume, but his Wikipedia page is titled "Basil Hume" not "Cardinal Hume". So it is with Michael Fisher, who was born as Reginald Lindsay Fisher, but when he joined the Society of Saint Francis he took the religious name Michael. So although Fisher was commonly known "Brother Michael", his Wikipedia page should include his religious name and his surname. Scrivener-uki (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a funny sort of mash-up though, since Franciscans are generally called "Brother John" with no surname. I'm just wondering whether Michael was ever (let alone commonly) called "Michael Fisher". If not, then we could be straying into synthesis... Dan BD 18:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
He published his memoirs in 1993, titled For the Time Being, and as the author his is called Michael Fisher, S.S.F. I don't think we can be any more clear than that for his common-name. Scrivener-uki (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, nice one. We certainly can't. I'll 'action' that then. Dan BD 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I did a thing. If you're cool with it as it is (just take a look at my contribs), then great; if not, please do have a fiddle. Dan BD 21:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Danbarnesdavies. You have new messages at Scrivener-uki's talk page.
Message added 18:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apostolic Vicariate of Natal, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages OSB and OMI (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) 08:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Honorfics[edit]

I think that perhaps you misunderstand MOS:HONORIFIC. I believe it to mean that honorifics should not be used in article titles, which I agree with 100%, I don't think it wrong to include honorific titles that people were entitled to use in the body of the article. I would be interested to know why you think it is wrong to include honorifics in the body of the article, what harm does it do? Wayne Jayes (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I do, but I did read carefully before starting on AWB: for a start, the first two words are "In general"; the Father Coughlin example would point to in-text references; "Mrs. Alfred Jones" reads similarly; finally "see [NAMING CONVENTIONS] for use in article titles." seems to suggest the entire section refers exclusively to in-text references. Dan BD 15:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Your continued removal of honorifics is unhelpful bordering on vandalism. In an article about a church and churchmen it matters if words are spoken by the leader of the church (archbishop) as opposed to just an ordinary member. Removing the honorifics in this stupid way reduces the value and meaning of the article. As I have said before your understanding of MOS:HONORIFIC is flawed. Wayne Jayes (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
As I hope you'll see from my edits just now at Anglican Church of Southern Africa, there are ways to get that information across which do not breach the MOS. If you'd prefer that Revds appear, then you should start a discussion about that portion of the MOS. I'll be quite happy to pause while that discussion occurs. Dan BD 17:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive changing of bishop articles[edit]

Please stop your repeated disruptive changing of bishop article names contrary to the Manual of Style. Your respect for the MoS is highly selective. You insist on following it slavishly on some matters but deliberately violate it on others. I will be keeping a watch on this issue and all further such violations by you will be reverted. Afterwriting (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, discussions are ongoing: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)/WP:BISHOP revision. Perhaps you will help to encourage their unbestallment? Dan BD 11:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"Sir" Basher replying to Daniel Davies, the Dukes of Barnes_[edit]

As I recall the link was already there for Sir Bob Reed, but as someone who listens fairly regularly to Radio 4 I always knew when they said Sir Bob Reid they were differentiating him from his predecessor as British Rail head, who was also Sir Robert Reid. Sir Bob Reid's own Who's Who entry (which is written by himself) has the by-line REID, Sir Robert Paul, (Sir Bob) But then again what about Screaming Lord Sutch? it's a minefield...Bashereyre (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comrade Dan Barnes-Davies, to Comrade Basher Eyre[edit]

Lol, brilliant! Does not Bob Reid (executive) (or some such) dab him sufficiently though? Red flag.svg Dan Barnes-Davies (Comrade) Red star.svg 11:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead[edit]

Do the deed!Bashereyre (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Basher's Biog[edit]

That's the trouble, Dan. So far I've been far too modest. Read on

Sir Basher Eyre, VC, MP, DD, FRS was born in Dorset where his dad once had the priviledge of changing a car wheel for Elisabeth Frink. At school Basher had the honour to be bonked over the head with a hymn book by prefect Howard Drake. In his last year he had Simon Ings in his CCF platoon. At university he once queued up behind Phil Daniels at a sandwich bar near the hall of residence where he lived. Training as a teacher he had Stephen Kinnock in his first class. The next 34 years passed uneventfully until he edited an article on Chris Chivers. Sorry, just couldn't keep it up, I'm one of life's blender-innersBashereyre (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of West Cumberland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Pratt (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) 08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of Worcester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godfrey (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) 09:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A big thank you[edit]

Apparently the old adage about "Painting the Fourth Bridge" is not actually true but you know what I mean. I, meanwhile, have had my very own article in The Sun [4] Bashereyre (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I do indeed. And, despite the pay wall, well done you. Dan BD 18:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
All my pupils came in brandishing paper copies!Bashereyre (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That's one way to get young people interested in print media! Dan BD 16:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archdeacon of Worcester, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishop of Gibraltar (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) 10:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin's big day[edit]

Is he now a bishop. I see he was born in Pompey. Top man!Bashereyre (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Happy birthday![edit]

No sooner said than done![edit]

Can't have you sitting at an un-Wikied desk... Bashereyre (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!!![edit]

Nuvola apps cookie.svg Happy First Edit Day, Danbarnesdavies, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! -- JohnGormleyJG () 08:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

C of E Assistant Bishops List[edit]

Can't seem to find it. I was filling in the red bits! Bashereyre (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Danbarnesdavies/List of assistant bishops in the Church of England Dan BD 11:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Queen's Birthday Honours List[edit]

I note that some of the more famous already have their honour on the page. So does Sir Lenny Henry become a knight once it is officially announced; or when the queen's sword falls on his noble shoulders? Just wondering, but don't tell you know who!Bashereyre (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I am given to understand that honours may be used as soon as they are announced, except obviously for peerages whose specific titles need to be gazetted before use. Dan BD 17:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan[edit]

Bashereyre (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your continual problematic editing[edit]

Please stop it with your continual adding of information as factual before it is actually so. I will be removing any and all further instances of this kind of nonsense by you. It is not acceptable. Anglicanus (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What I have been adding in these cases is sourced information — that scheduled dates for certain events have been announced. I do not know of any guidelines which I have been breaking with such edits: certainly not WP:CRYSTAL which states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." — these events are clearly notable within the contexts I have been adding them, they are almost certain to take place and I always phrase these edits such that it is clear the dates are not absolutely definite.
Unless you can provide clear and compelling examples of guidance which these edits have broken, then it is your arrogant unilateral condemnation of perfectly harmless — and indeed generally helpful — behaviour which is unacceptable. Dan BD 21:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I had a feeling we'd done this before. We have: [5] Dan BD 20:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Including appropriately worded information about "scheduled or expected future events" in the body of the article is one thing and is quite acceptable. Presenting such information as if it is already factual, such as including it in info boxes and in adding succession boxes, is another matter and is not acceptable. Anglicanus (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I contest that it is not another matter. According to whom or what is it not acceptable. Also, we'll talk about alternative episcopal oversight wording at Talk:Diocese of London. Dan BD 18:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Deanery of Lafford (and other deaneries)[edit]

Hello Danbarnesdavies. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Deanery of Lafford, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A deanery (in effect, a sub-diocese) in the Church of England is generally notable. Thank you. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 00:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Danbarnesdavies, you should always sign and date messages, even if they are templates. Speedy deletion is a tool for removing articles that are clearly of no significance. This is defined at a very low level, and if an article is not notable, it still may be found to be significant. Deaneries of the Church of England can be easily shown to be significant, and it does not matter if the articles don't prove that. If you believe that these articles are not notable, then you should take them through the longer process of deletion. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
They seemed cut-and-dried non-notable to me, but fair enough :) Discussion is always good. (Sorry I forgot to sign; I must have assumed that was automatic.) Dan BD 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It is done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanery of Alresford Dan BD 20:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again[edit]

It should be bleeding obvious that "area" shouldn't be included in this way in the info box. As is your usual custom you keep on inventing your own style policies. Just stop this nonsense. Anglicanus (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't you see that you are doing exactly that of which you are accusing me?! Unless you can show me a policy which states this "bleeding obvious", then it is not only not obvious but also nonsense. Dan BD 13:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard Burridge (priest)[edit]

Hi. I don't see where WP:NCWC suggests "priest" would be preferred over "dean". Could you explain? Thanks. — Earwig talk 23:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right; my bad, that isn't specifically stated therein. Rather, it is an application of the principle that we use broader dab words rather than narrower and, as NCWC mentions wrt bishops, we prefer (bishop) to (archbishop) as the former is an Holy Order whereas the latter is a fragment of a job title. Same goes for (priest), which is the order into which Burridge is ordained, vs (dean), which is an incomplete version of (Dean of King's College London). Dan BD 08:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Harold Jones and Robert O'Neill (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) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC[edit]

It is my understanding that MOS:HONORIFIC only applies to the subjects of biographical articles and does not apply to the styles and titles of other people mentioned in these articles or in non-biographical articles. I note that you have been removing honorifics from multiple articles based on your own understanding of this MoS guideline. I believe your understanding is incorrect and that this is clear from other MoS guidelines on using styles and titles in articles. Please do not continue removing any more styles and titles until this matter is clarified. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi AW. I've discussed this above at #Honorfics (sic) but am of course perfectly happy to discuss again. Dan BD 08:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
(Referred by WP:Catholicism) Looking over a number of your edits, I see some potential for mistakes or ambiguities to come in. In a list of parishes and parish priests, it's probably not necessary to label each and every priest as "Father", but it seems excessive to remove the title "Monsignor" from those who are entitled to the style of address. If the article referred to the same person multiple times, it would be appropriate to drop "Monsignor" after the first use, but removing it entirely seems excessive. Similarly with titles in the article Presiding Bishop, where they serve to underline that the person being referred to is clergy. In the article Porky's II: The Next Day, the character Reverend Flavel is referred to as "Reverend" by the other characters; removing "Reverend" while leaving in Commissioner Gebhardt's title is an error. (Both should be left in, as both are referred to with their title by the other characters in the movie.)
These are the sort of edits which shouldn't be made blindly using AWB or some other semi-automated tool; you should look at the article as a whole and the context in which the title appears, before removing all occurrences of a person's title. Argyriou (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Argyriou. Thanks for writing. I really appreciate your directness — I agree there could be some potential for ambiguities and indeed mistakes. I'm glad we agree that lists of priests don't require Rev or Fr, and I take your point over Monsignor: but how important is it that readers know that she or he is a Monsignor? With priests we are either assuming that readers know they are Rev/Fr/Rev Fr or that that's not something they need to know. As for Presiding Bishop and this edit which Afterwriting (talk · contribs) reverted, my contention is that in context it is usually perfectly clear that such people are whatever-kind-of-clergy (and where this hasn't been the case I have achieved this by adding context).
As for "Porky's"(!) I agree I completely dropped the ball: in other cases where a fiction article has come up I've simply skipped it. As you say, I shall be more vigilant with AWB. Thanks again. Dan BD 10:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ordination of women in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Peter Watson
Ripon College Cuddesdon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bishop of Dorchester

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)