User talk:GrindtXX

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

Rogue Article, or not?[edit]

Do you have any views on Gatton, Surrey whether it is worthy of its own article?
Consider: we already have Gatton (UK Parliament constituency) for when it was a famed Rotten Borough.

London wiki[edit]

If you wish to make use of this wiki feel free (OR etc allowed). Jackiespeel (talk)

Rot Lot Pat[edit]

Thank you very much for your help on my query at Letters Patent. If I may pray/prey further on your good nature [and I won't be surprised if you can't make time to reply], I found the reference at and it just takes me further down the rabbit hole! Any idea what litteris attestatis apud 129 might mean? [I guess the first two words are 'letter cited' but apud? And cited where? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: apud is just "at", and attestatis is more like "attested", "certified"; so the phrase means something like "letters issued at ..." – but one would expect that to conclude with a place-name, not a page number. Are you sure you've read your source right? I've also looked at the entry on, and the document in question wasn't actually a market charter, merely a document that King John happened to issue at Stony Stratford (presumably while passing through). I'm not completely sure of the details, but it's addressed by John to the mayor and reeves of Northampton, and is about Godfrey Blundus, who is in custody accused of the death of Roger Hareng ... and after that I get a bit lost (I think John is ordering that he should be tried by the royal justices-in-eyre, but I'm not sure). However, I guess this is probably a side-issue as far as you're concerned. GrindtXX (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you GrindtXX. I guessed (incorrectly, it seems) that it was referring back to another document. You have done more than enough so I won't ask for more. But what you have found is consistent with a report I heard that a local amateur historian had tried to find the fabled charter and was unable to do so. That is consistent with your reading. Clearly the VCH lacked keen editors checking citations Face-smile.svg. Well, so what if the citation is a bit dubious despite its excellent credentials - history is written by the victors. Thank you again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, GrindtXX. Regarding your recent edit to John Blair (historian), I figured I'd let you know that the titles of theses are usually italicized on Wikipedia (as they are in APA style). MOS:ITALICS provides that the titles major works are italicized and that the "[m]edium of publication or presentation is not a factor" with respect to italicization. This is reflected in {{cite thesis}} and {{infobox academic}}. Cheers, (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Polydore Vergil[edit]

Why bother with the archaic spelling and grammar? Most modern readers are turned off by needlessly arcane spelling. This is not a translation by Shakespeare, so we're not sacrificing genius. Let's be approachable instead of punctilious, condescending, and effete.

Rosspz — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's rather "condescending" to assume that the reader is a moron, who hasn't got the wit to make sense of something written in non-standard spelling. However, the more important point is that there is an unambiguous Manual of Style guideline, which I cited (MOS:PMC), stating that "the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced", and should "retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization". If our cited source modernises the spelling, so do we. But if it doesn't, we don't. GrindtXX (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert.[edit]

Thanks for reverting me at Blazon. You are quite right.--Srleffler (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hilary Jenkinson[edit]

Thanks for the spot. Usually when I see a potentially gender-neutral name like that I double-check, but this one slipped my notice. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Why 153 fish ?[edit]

Hello GrindtXX, I saw that you have deleted my post on the page [1] because it was copypasted and lacked references. Therefore, I did researches by myself and except the Milesian code I can't produce any references. The text was copypasted because I edited it first on word, then I added it on Wikipédia. I would glad to talk to you to give you more information about my research since it's a long mystery which was waiting to be solved. User:Gataram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gataram (talkcontribs) 12:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your additions strictly on the grounds of Wikipedia policies and conventions. Your ideas appear to be based on your own speculation and research, and therefore count as "original research", which Wikipedia does not allow (see WP:OR). My reference to copypasting was based on the tone of your language, which was (again) speculative and conversational, rather than "encyclopedic" (i.e. precise, factual, and concise), and looked as if it might have been copied (without attribution) from a theological essay or something similar. The article already states that "many conflicting theories [have] been offered" for the significance of the number 153. If you want to go into a little more detail about some of those theories, with full references to the writers who have proposed them (see WP:VERIFY) that would probably be acceptable (although I think that the article on 153 (number) might be a better place than this one). You should also be aware that Wikipedia disapproves of giving disproportionate emphasis to minority "fringe" theories (see WP:FRINGE); and there has in the past been much discussion about the inclusion of such theories in this article (see Talk:Miraculous catch of fish). If the research and arguments are truly your own, there are other places – ranging from print journals to blogs – where you can publish your ideas. Wikipedia is not the place to start. GrindtXX (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
2. Thanks for your answer. I understand your argumentation and I will check carefully Wikipedia's polities in my future publication. Therefore, if I write the same article again (in the talk page instead of article one) are you going to revert it again because of copypast or something ?
Actually, I would like to share my discover in order to inform biblical theology's specialists. It could open new horizons that were inexplorated until now. As a Father myself, I received a lot of encouragement of my religious community to publish my discovery.
As I said earlier, this research was written on a other support (word). So I can't produce at the moment an "official" approuvement to it. In the case I send my theorie to the Biblical School of Jerusalem and this one is judged acceptable, will it be enough for the references ? Gataram (talk)
I apologise for not responding to your last message. I would indeed strongly encourage you to publish your detailed findings and arguments in an appropriate forum elsewhere. Once you have done that (and provided that the forum in question is sufficiently reputable to meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source) you would be welcome to add your conclusions, with a reference, to either Miraculous catch of fish or 153 (number) (or both), and I would be unlikely to revert. GrindtXX (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Like-Minded Persons' Club (provisional membership award)[edit]

"Dreaming the same Impossible Dream"

The Like-Minded Persons' Club
For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club.

To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months.

(Disagreements are so vulgar, don't you think? And, as Bruce Chatwin said, Arguments are fatal. One always forgets what they are about)

Congratulations. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

re: George Dawson[edit]

Thanks for contacting me. I welcome the feedback. I assure you that I take on the task of editing VERY seriously. When I received your message, I went back to review what happened. I recently began using AWB and have been experimenting with the settings. You happend to have made your edit -reinserting the religion parameter in a different infobox - before I updated the list I was working from, which ID's those articles with the parameter in the Infobox Person. For the record, long before I made my initial edit, Geroge Dawson's religion has unviewable in the article. For well over a year it has not only been unviewable, but the code in the edit window creates an error message in the system which ultimately appears here: I'm just removing the code from the edit window. Gene Wilson (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedian,

I admit I was not able to give my argument on the tags I put so I put a new section on the Talk page.


Allenjambalaya (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

KES Mark Fenton[edit]

He will be leaving on 31 August, see, so yes, you are right it is premature. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)