User talk:Lobsterthermidor

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

Contents

File source problem with File:SapcotesImpalingDinham BamptonChurchDevon.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:SapcotesImpalingDinham BamptonChurchDevon.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's my own work, sections now completed, thanks. But as file now replaced by File:SapcoteImpalingDinhamBamptonChurchDevon.JPG(commons), please delete this old file anyway. Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC))

John II Hawley (d.1408)[edit]

We can't just add parts to a person's name! Have you seen any sources where this person is call "John II Hawley"? If not, he must be at John Hawley (!dab-phrase!), preferably something like (politician)... DBD 20:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

See his HoP biog at Woodger, L.S., biography of John Hawley (d.1408) published in History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993 where he is called "HAWLEY, John I (d.1408) of Dartmouth", which then proceeds to call him the son of "John Hawley of Dartmouth". The former's son is called "John II Hawley" in his own HoP biog at [1]. I don't think the terminology "The Elder" in preference to "I" and "The Younger" in preference to "II" is fixed in stone by any particular source, the main point is to distinguish them all effectively and accurately. On this basis the earliest recorded/prominent John Hawley (i.e. the father of John Hawley (d.1408)) should surely be called "John I", his son John II and his grandson John III? I don't think adding ordinal numbers is akin to adding parts to a person's name, as in the US where living people call themselves e.g. "Henry Ford III". It depends what angle you're looking at them from. The ordinal numbers I used refer to John Hawleys who were important persons in Dartmouth, not more narrowly to John Hawleys who have been MP's, as the History of Parliament article necessarily limits itself to, being only concerned with persons with parliamentary careers. At WP we'd still be interested in a person even if not an MP, thus if John III's son wasn't an MP but was an important landowner in Dartmouth, a wealthy merchant or perhaps Sheriff of Devon, I think we'd call him John IV in his own WP article, and if his son was an MP, we'd have to call him John V, whilst his HoP biog would probably call him John III, being only the third John Hawley to have been an MP. The most important distinguishing feature in the name, whatever ordinal number is used, is the date of death, which resolves any possible confusion, but ordinal numbers remove the need in an article to constantly repeat dates of death, and if clearly defined at the start of the article (i.e. "John II was the son of John I by his wife Mary Smith"), I suggest are useful in this context.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

John II Baring (1730-1816)[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor (love the name!)

I was wondering why you moved the page to John II Baring (1730-1816).

So far as I can see, either John Baring (1730-1816) or John II Baring would have been unambiguous, and this appears to be double-disambiguation. Have I missed something? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't really fault your argument, clearly I'm of the belt-and-braces persuasion. Thanks for having restored the deleted text too. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC))
Thanks for being so nice about it :)
There is a case for using the numeric dabs, but if so they should come after the name not in the middle of it. His name was not "John II Baring". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Compound vs. composition[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, You recently added material related to the word compound to the disambiguation page composition. I would suggest that instead that material belongs on the disambiguation page compound, with a see-also link connecting the two. What do you think? Best, JBL (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I had considered that, but concluded that the two (or more) forms, derived from Latin 1st person present & supine, were inextricable (hence why I gave the parts of the Latin verb). For example a composition and compounding as used in Civil War fines, "he paid a composition" and "he compounded", which one would Composition (fine) go in, or in both? Ditto almost every other entry. I think it would be very messy. I did create an additional redirect here as Compounding (disambiguation), which should get any reader to this page. I have just realised too that Compound (disambiguation) also exists. Certainly some form of rationalisation is needed, I would suggest a consolidation into one, allowing use of any form derived from pono, but you may well disagree. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC))
Surely the right form of rationalization is by the corresponding English word, which is both a finer (and therefore easier to navigate) disambiguation, and also corresponds with how people will come to the pages. Composition (fine) should obviously be on the disambiguation page composition. If you believe that a reader might come to the page compound while looking for composition (fine), there is no reason it can't go there, too. (I have just been reading WP:DPAGE, which provides some guidance.) I am going to make the edits I have proposed. --JBL (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that all the links disambiguated on composition with the word "compound" in their titles already appear in the disambiguation page compound, unless I have missed something. --JBL (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, That seems to make sense.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC))

Devon houses[edit]

Hi, can you add all of your entries to List of country houses in the United Kingdom? Trying to make it as comprehensive as possible so all of your great Devon entries will help! You might also use Category:Country houses in Devon. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't Category:Country houses in Devon be a sub-category of List of country houses in the United Kingdom? Would you still want duplicate entries? I have 2 main problems with your request: firstly that the articles I contribute in this area are intended to be primarily about the estate or manor, not just about the building, which takes various forms over time, sometimes has been demolished. I have had problems in the past with other contributors attempting to convert such contributions into narrow architectural articles, hence my reluctance to categorise them as "houses". There is also the problem of determining what constitutes a "country house", generally quite a grand building, whilst many of my contribs. concern now quite modest farmhouses with grander pasts. I have made use of these cats where obviously appropriate and will try to use them in future. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC))

Delinquent[edit]

Thank you for this edit. I hope you will not think it churlish of me to point out a couple of things.

You linked to the word delinquent which is a dab page, and while one can link to dab pages the damb bot will tell you that you have done so and like a faithful dog wait for you to throw the stick and fix it. If you do not "fix it" yourself, sooner or later someone else will. I have altered the link to wikt:delinquent which is often a better alternative for words like that.

The second one is that you have added some inline citations to sources that just consist of bare URLs. They look ugly (particularly is someone prints a hard copy) and they are more difficult to fix when they suffer link rot (See WP:CITE#Generally considered helpful).

I was going to fixed them but I thought I could introduce you to this nifty tool and let you have a go.

It is not perfect and if the link to to a google book a better tool to use is:

-- PBS (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Improper page moves[edit]

Hello, I've noticed that you've made several improper page moves. For example you recently moved Compounding to Compounding (pharmaceuticals). However, a primary topic (e.g. compounding) should never be a redirect; it should either be a full article or a disambiguation page, and there is absolutely no reason to have it redirect to a parenthetical title. Graham87 09:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why the pharmaceutical use of the term compounding is deemed the "primary topic". Why is not, for example, its use in the field of finance? To have an article entirely about pharmaceutical matters with the simple title "Compounding" appears to put that usage at the top of the indexing tree, which is surely a matter of judgement. Am I mis-understanding something?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC))
Consensus for whether a title should or should not be a primary topic should be made at requested moves. What was really weird by Wikipedia standards was having the title "Compounding" redirect to a single use of the term; the title "Compounding" should either contain an actual article or a disambiguation page (I have no opinion about which one), not a redirect. Graham87 15:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're probably right on that, see the discussion above headed Compound vs. composition, where I conceded the point you make.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC))

Merryfield, Ilton & Hoskins, p.422[edit]

Thanks for creating Merryfield, Ilton, but you added a reference to "Hoskins, p.422" without giving further details - could you give the title, publisher, isbn etc?— Rod talk 21:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. I don't generally supply pub & isbn when working from old editions, here 1959, now only available from 2nd hand bookshops, so isbn & pub not relevant in helping reader find it. This book is available in in-print paperback, so that info could be added by someone if they feel inclined. Thanks for your additions too.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC))

Orchard Wyndham, Wyndham holdings & Brean Down[edit]

Hi, I noticed in the list of historic estates you added to Orchard Wyndham a mention of Brean Down - do you have any dates for when they owned it?— Rod talk 10:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea, the current WP article makes no mention, but I refer you to my source: National Archives, Family and Estate Details, Wyndham family of Orchard Wyndham, GB/NNAF/F89128 Here. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)). By the way, thanks for having created the article, I hadn't noticed!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC))

Earl of Westmorland[edit]

With this edit (7 March 2012 ) you cited "Debrett's Peerage, 1968" I am having difficulty clearly identifying the book. Please provide some more information. The full title and the location of publication is the minim needed, but in addition editor and the publisher would be help. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Montague-Smith, P.W. (ed.), Debrett's Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Companionage, Kelly's Directories Ltd, Kingston-upon-Thames, 1968. Now added to edit cited. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC))

Holnicote Estate[edit]

Thanks for all your work on Holnicote Estate. As each of the references is being reused several times how would you feel about me converting it to Template:Sfn? and I will try to add some more content as well - maybe this could get to GA standard eventually?— Rod talk 11:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input too, esp. the excellent image of the monument, delivered at precisely the right time and place! Thanks for asking, I loathe refs being converted into shortened form from basic text as I frequently reuse sources in different related articles, complete with refs. When these are unintelligible and scrambled, it all has to be re-deciphered and done again in the new article. Very time-consuming and annoying. I can't see the point myself. It makes editing un-user-friendly. Fine for an article which has been totally finished, as a final tidy up, but WP articles tend to remain dynamic. I do tend to try to shorten refs myself, where already quoted in full or stated in sources section, to something like: "Smith, 1996, p.23" which means more than some ref in unintelligible code. That's my personal view of course. So if I have a choice, I'd prefer not, esp as the group of articles are still developing and thus I frequently use same refs. More content great. As for GA status, I'm not a fan. It tends to fossilise articles and involves people often with little interest in the subject itself but with more interest in the minor details, which makes further development difficult. I've seen many GA articles which frankly are pretty poor and could do with a total re-write, which is by then impossible due to the bureaucratic hurdles of GA status. Again, purely my own personal opinion.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC))
OK I'll leave the refs for now, maybe once you have "finished" we can look again as I find sfn & similar make it easier for the reader if a book has been used multiple times, although I accept your comment tha it may make it more difficult for the editor(s). BTW I have access to The British Newspaper Archive though wikipedia library & just did a search for holnicote so have lots more sources for events including the sale of the property etc which I will get around to at some point. GA article can always still be edited (including radically if needed), but I see your point. One of my projects at the moment (well a year or two) is to get all 37 National Trust properties in Somerset to GA (see User:Rodw#Personal to do list (help welcome)) so if there are any others on that list (or the EH ones) you are/might be working on let me know & I will leave them alone.— Rod talk 12:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC) I've made a start on one of your red links Petherton Park - hope this is helpful.— Rod talk 20:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, very helpful, thanks. Petherton Park looks like an interesting topic, which I've come across several times, not just due to Acland/Wroth involvement but due to its ancient holders who seem to have held it due to their post as royal foresters of Petherton Park, (i.e. Jollenus Dacus), but that's all I know.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC))
Would you be happy for me to reformat the references on the Holnicote Estate article now?— Rod talk 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Still not finished, lots more info needed on mediaeval estate & surviving gateway etc, but you've been patient enough so go ahead if you want. Thanks a lot.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
Thanks - making a start. Can I just clarify is "Vivian, Lt.Col. J.L., (Ed.) The Visitation of the County of Devon: Comprising the Heralds' Visitations of 1531, 1564 & 1620, Exeter, 1895, p.554, pedigree of Martyn" The same as this 2012 book which doesn't give Vivian as the author?— Rod talk 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Also ref 24 points to this page of Geograph This is user generated content with little or no editorial control (so maybe not RS). Its probably OK to support a claim about the window but doesn't really support everything in the picture caption.— Rod talk 17:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Re Vivian, yes the publication you refer to is the same, but this undated USA photo-reprint (that's all it is) has mangled the publisher details. It's not a new edition. The original was not published by the College of Arms (whose officers did carry out the actual 16th/17th c. visitations), but by the Harleian Society. The ref I usually give for this source which you quote above is taken from the title page of the 1895 Harleian Society book. The photo-reprint (Nabu Public Domain Reprints) did not reproduce the title page, intro, preface etc. and in fact thus omits any mention of Vivian! Re geograph used as source for caption of Lynch Chapel window (date of restoration & patron), good point, have now added the actual source used, quoting from Pevsner, but can't supply the page no. I'm afraid. Thanks for your input.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
OK I will try to put the Vivian ref together from what you've given me. My old (1958) copy of Pevsner S&W Somerset (p227) has info on the chapel at Lynch & says the window was renewed in 1885 but doesn't mentionThomas Dyke Acland.— Rod talk 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Think I've got the Vivian one - what does (pedigree of Martyn) mean? Isn't that sub section about the Martyns— Rod talk 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
PK I think I can help with ref 25. I would cite it to the EHR page where you read it. Looking at that page Pevsner p227 is there but the bit you've quoted is from (their ref 19) BOSSINGTON & WEST LYNCH CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL so we can use that as a ref if better.— Rod talk 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The Lynch Chapel source is a bit of a mess, my fault. I hope to add an article on the building itself at some point, possibly part of one on Bossington. The stained glass is quite interesting. The framed info-sheet in the porch of the chapel states restoration in 1880's by Sir Thomas Acland. My identification of the correct baronet of this name per life dates, as several were called Thomas. (see Acland Baronets). He was definitely the patron and owner of this chapel. I'd rather use Pevsner as source, seems more solid, than the www.exmoorher.co.uk one, but if your're happy with the latter, fine. Re Vivian, it's basically a list of pedigrees, each family occupying a few pages, in alphabetical order. Martyn refers the reader to the section on that family.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
I've used all 3 refs as they all support slightly different bits. I removed (pedigree of Martyn) as the page number is given.— Rod talk 19:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Henry Bourchier, 5th Earl of Bath[edit]

In May this year you added information to Henry Bourchier, 5th Earl of Bath (diff) during which you added short citations to Andriette, and Pevsner. Unfortunately there are no long citations in the References section to give full bibliographic details. Please add a long citations to the References section. -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, sorry for the oversight.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC))
Thank you for your very quick response, however because you have not put the title in italics, I can not tell if "Newton Abbot" is the location of the publisher, part of the title or a "chapter" in the book. please could you alter the citation to make that clear and then I will take care of formatting it using templates (I a more familiar with the Pevsner citation as I used a sister volume for Westwood House). -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done, hope that's clearer, Newton Abbot is place where published. Westwood House, interesting, hadn't heard of it.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC))
Thanks, no reason why you should have heard of Westwood House (with over 4 million articles to read!). A detail I like, and added to the article, is that the much more famous Chateau Impney may have been built as a two fingered political and social salute between new industrial money and an old aristocratic family. -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hadn't heard of that either, somewhat hideous!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC))

Category:Quantified human groups[edit]

Category:Quantified human groups, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, have added my comment there.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC))

Merger discussion for Fee tail[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not seem to be about a notable topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Knight of the Body[edit]

Please see Talk:Esquire of the Body#Knight of the Body -- PBS (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added my remarks on that page.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC))

Battle of Clyst Heath (1455)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Battle of Clyst Heath (1455), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/ClystStMary/Radford1912.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Work in public domain, out of copyright, please see Talk:Battle of Clyst Heath (1455).(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC))

Reference errors on 9 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Holnicote Estate again[edit]

As you may have noticed I nominated the Holnicote Estate estate article for GA. Although it has not been reviewed yet I received this message suggesting some changes which would be needed to the article for it to pass. Having looked again at the article I think some of the points are valid, particularly about the family histories, most of which I believe you wrote. I think we need to make clear what the connection of the families listed are to the estate, turn a lot of the bullet lists into prose and improve the referencing. I think this would also involve the removal of some of the images and detail about their coats of arms etc as not being directly relevant to the estate. Perhaps these details could be moved into articles on the specific families (similar to the Acland baronets article) and then linked from the Holnicote article. I wanted to ask you about this before making major revisions.— Rod talk 19:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, of course I'm disappointed that much of the historic interest of this article has been removed or now treated in a relatively superficial manner, with limited scope for expansion. There seems to be a problem with what is meant by an estate: is it the lichen and footpaths or the history of ownership, or both? The Victoria County History model which I follow is concerned purely with the descent. That is an important topic in itself which is often very complex, contains many gaps, and is helped by use of bullet points, sub-sections, etc, to avoid a sort of name-check-spaghetti which confuses the reader. Illustrations of coats of arms, are also useful, as shown in VCH articles, and help show descent from one family to another. I'm not sure there's still room for both aspects in this article, the historical and topographical. I'm tempted to WP:SPLIT the descent element to a new article called perhaps: Descent of manor of Holnicote, where this important topic can be given a focussed treatment. I could attempt to deal with some of the detailed points raised in the post you mentioned above, but probably better to resolve the existential point first.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC))
I understand your feelings as it is difficult if work you have put in is removed (not by me but by another editor). The work on the descent is important, saying you owned the estate and when, but I'm less sure about including relatives who didn't inherit this estate or the coats of arms etc. I would suggest a split but not trying to focus it on the Descent of manor of Holnicote but on each dynasty of important lords etc, this could then bring in the other properties they owned and their roles. The use of too many bullet points etc may conflict with the Manual of Style eg Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Prose versus lists.— Rod talk 14:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, the listing of descent is an important aspect for every significant estate or manor in England, as recognised by VCH and works of many county historians from 17th c to 19th c, especially in cases like Holnicote which are listed in Domesday Book. Indeed many county histories are concerned with little else, i.e. Risdon & Pole for Devonshire and I suspect Collinson for Somerset, which I would guess you are more conversant with than me. This single-minded interest was again taken up in the 19th c by the likes of the Lyson brothers etc., who drew on the 17th c. pioneers in the field and brought the descents up to date. Burke's Landed Gentry completed the task into the 20th c. I just set that out for the record, I'm sure you are familiar with the rationale, and I'm glad you agree that the work on descent is important. I would emphasise something though: it's not just about the people who "owned" the estate, these people and families created the estate and developed it, built and re-built the mansion house, the village houses, mills, etc, and made it into a local power centre, put it on the map. Without these people the "estate" would just be a mass of virgin forest. As the power of gentry families, who ran local government and formed the pool from which local MP's were elected, came from their landholdings, the estate was virtually synonymous with the family name, and is usually given after the name by good biographers, e.g. History of Parliament, which always gives the member's residence in the article title, i.e. "Acland of Killerton". Much of the interest of Holnicote is due to the fact it was a power base of the Aclands, one of the most powerful families in the Westcountry, and this has to be emphasised, else the general reader will not appreciate the true historical role of the estate other than its natural features, of great importance on another level. I think you are aware of this aspect, but it's something that has to be pushed in front of editors who may not have a basic familiarity of the former system of administration of the English counties by local gentry dynasties. If it is important to deal with these families let us say "seated" at the estate as their powerbase, then mere names are of little use to the reader, some background needs to be included, e.g. that the Blackfords came from Dunster. In the case of certain dynasties little is recorded other than who their relatives were, in which case text on such relations seems relevant. Where a lot is known about the actual holder, such info may well be extraneous. The coats of arms apart from being in themselves of much interest to many readers and a notable topic (arms are mentioned and illustrated in so many of the sources, incl. VCH, and appear in the parish church (Selworthy Church) visited by thousands yearly - it's near the tourist hotspots of N. Somerset). They also are useful to liven up often long paragraphs of text where no portrait or other suitable image is available. Coats of arms were taken extremely seriously by owners of such estates, they were the symbol of the family and like a flag of a country were accorded much honour, and certainly have a place in articles on each dynasty. I don't know if your point above about "relatives who didn't inherit this estate" refers to the edit 13:47, 21 May 2015‎ Noswall59 "(→‎Acland: removing portrait of Edward Dyke - he never even owned the estate!)", which is somewhat annoying as he was the lynchpin by which Holnicote came to the Aclands, see Hancock p.173[2]: "Lady Acland thus became a great heiress. Her uncle, John, who is described as of Holnicote Court, esq., died s.p. in the spring, 1732, and the Holnicote estate passed to her" (sic, should be his) "brother Edward, who proved his brother John's will 24th May, 1732. And so, on the death of Edward Dyke (2), the estates both of Holnicote and Pixton passed to her." If anyone's portrait belongs in the article it's Edward Dyke's! Sorry to go on a bit, last point: I don't totally follow what you mean: "I would suggest a split but not trying to focus it on the Descent of manor of Holnicote but on each dynasty of important lords etc, this could then bring in the other properties they owned and their roles." If I understand you correctly you are advocating e.g. a separate article on the Blackford family and another on the Dyke family. I'm not sure I would agree with that, if that's your meaning, the Dykes perhaps were notable per se, but perhaps not the Blackfords, it was their role in the development and descent of Holnicote which makes them notable, and there they are key players, so to divorce them from an article on Holnicote might make the article liable to a non-notability challenge. I do think the chain of descent format is the right one, it's well established by the writers I referred to above, and used by the VCH today. In that regard completeness of the chain of descent is important, as VCH tries to do where records exist. I would like to get on with the WP:SPLIT soon, but I would like to agree with you the correct format, clearly I am advocating a "chain of descent" format, before I proceed. If you could elaborate your point "not trying to focus it on the Descent of manor of Holnicote", that would be helpful. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC))
I would agree that descent is important, but perhaps not with the emphasis you (and VCH) give, particularly where text is included which can only bee sen as tangential to the estate itself. In addition I think there is a risk of including material which is difficult to verify particularly their contribution to the estate under discussion particularly as "in the case of certain dynasties little is recorded other than who their relatives were". The coats of arms may be of interest in themselves; however I don't think we have any evidence to claim that thay are "of much interest to many readers" - it is very difficult to find what readers are looking for and often we assume that they have similar interests to ourselves - I am amazed that pop star biographies etc are massively more viewed than nationally and internationally renowned heritage sites. If the particular family and/or their coat of arms are "a notable topic" then it should be possibly to create articles on them, and this is what I meant when I suggested trying to create articles on the dynasty/family, perhaps with specific articles for the most notable individuals in a similar manner to the Acland baronets or you could take the approach of the Feudal barony of Dunster, however I think that may be more difficult if there are several "minor branches" (younger brothers etc). So I would support "a separate article on the Blackford family and another on the Dyke family" but you have a lot more knowledge than I do about whether there are enough sources to support this approach.— Rod talk 19:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There are so many inaccuracies and errors in the new "drive-by edited" text it is hard to know where to start putting things right - and can I really be bothered? In the haste to obtain the meaningless status of "good article", accuracy and content has been cast aside, by editors who have no real interest in this topic whatsoever. Very depressing. Just think of the reader - who really wants to learn about Holnicote and is served up this kind of superficial garbage.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC))
Hi, Lobsterthermidor. I can understand that you are disappointed about having some of your additions removed. I value your work and the outline of the descent that you gave was helpful in formulating a summary of it. However, this was no simple "drive-by" edit and I am interested about where I have "cast aside" accuracy and transformed the article into "superficial garbage". I researched the descent using works by Hancock, Maxwell Lyte, Chadwyck-Healey, et al. I don't believe that the latter had been used in the article, which was a shame given that he has a fairly scholarly chapter dedicated to Holnicote's manorial history which allowed me to expand upon the early history and include lots of new info on the Steynings. You have elsewhere disputed the Domesday material I added, and I have responded to that on the talk page. You've also talked above about Edward Dyke. As Maxwell Lyte states (p. 442), "Henrietta [Blackford] ... died in 1733 ... The Blackford property in Somerset then passed to her second cousin, Elizabeth daughter of Thomas Dyke of Tetton in the parish of Kingston. This lady, who eventually inherited the large, though scattered, estates of the several branches of the Dyke family, married, in 1745, Sir Thomas Acland". Your source suggests that Edward Dyke inherited it and then it passed to Elizabeth. I've looked in Chadwyck-Healey and found an explanation which clarifies this issue (I've added it to the article). I hold my hands up: I used Maxwell Lyte and it turns out he omitted some details by skimming over the complexities of the inheritance: the outcome was the same, but you are right to stress the importance of the descent. But please remember that you didn't cite your source(s) for the Blackford-Dyke-Acland inheritance, and you didn't really provide a narrative for how the estate was passed on. As a reader with "no real interest in the topic", I found your bullet-pointed list of people rather confusing, as I suspect a lot of other readers might have done. So, I tried to clarify it and when I read Maxwell Lyte's narrative, Dyke's portrait and a lot of the info about the family seemed irrelevant to the article. Now, I am happy to hear any more concerns over "inaccuracies" and "garbage". I would be happy to improve the article if it transpires that I am wrong. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC).
We all make mistakes, myself included, and some of mine were doubtless within this article. That's part of the WP process. What surely goes against the philosophy of WP is to scythe down articles which were carefully researched and sourced and included some real gems of info (to those really interested, who are the true target readership, not just the browser) and very rare images. Why was the portrait of Edward Dyke cast aside so carelessly? I can tell you as someone really interested in Holnicote, when I found this image I was very excited, for good reason. And the fact it still hangs in Dunster Castle is more exciting still. (I don't know whether you are up to speed about his involvement with the Luttrell family of Dunster, if not you might find it of interest) For someone to dispose of the image so thoughtlessly is a prima facie indication of a lack of real interest and understanding of the topic. Likewise the photo of the extremely valuable (I'm not concerned with £sd here) mediaeval stained glass in the stables, photographed by myself at great effort and with much excitement, again chucked out by someone who did not appreciate its value in illustrating the story. Apart from the gatehouse of the old mediaeval mansion house (which needs to be dealt with in the article too, I have photos) the fragment of stained glass is the only survival of the ancient history of the estate. It's almost gold dust. Sometimes contributing to WP can feel like casting pearls before swine. I'm glad to hear you really are interested in the topic. Let me set you this challenge: find out more about Edward Dyke and the role he played in transmitting Holnicote to the Aclands. When you have re-instated his portrait it will be a sign that you have understood. My word "garbage" was perhaps a bit overstated. My point is that it is of no use whatsoever to a reader to say "Holnicote was held by the Staynings family", or "by the xyz family", as a bald statement; is the reader supposed to know who they were, or is this just therefore a meaningless bit of text? We need to embroider a bit so the reader gains an appreciation of who they were, where they came from, why they were important, or if not why not - and why were the coats of arms thrown out? (drawn by myself, again a work of some considerable effort). Heraldry is a highly important topic, and survivals of ancient heraldic imagery as exists in Selworthy Church, almost exclusively concerning holders of Holnicote, are rare and valuable. The church is visited by thousands each year, unusual, many of whom stare incomprehendingly at the monuments, brasses and stained glass, and need this WP article to explain this complex topic. That sort of info is out there, in good sources. If you really do want to improve the article in these regards I will be delighted to work with you, but if what you are aiming at is a suppressed or dumbed-down history which deprives the truly interested reader of valuable information and images, then we're not going to agree.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC))

Hudscott Photographs Commons Media[edit]

Hudscott Photographs

I've been taking photographs for the OS Geograph page and came across the attribution "Lobsterthermidor". Assuming this is you, I would like to use your excellent photos of Hudscott Manor under the Creative Commons licence and would prefer to have your OK first if they are yours.

The photo reference is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudscott

keoka 03:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keoka (talkcontribs)

Thanks, yes, please feel free to use them as you wish. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC))

Debrett's[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you added a few references of Debrett's Peerage to Creedy, Sandford. Do you still happen to have access to Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage 2015? Regards - NQ (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, would you like me to look something up for you?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC))
If you could help with this request by Hroðulf over at the Resource Exchange, that would be great. Thanks! - NQ (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll on the use of The Rt. Hon.[edit]

Hello. I have created a straw poll on whether The Right Honourable should be used in infoboxes for all Barons, Viscounts and Earls or just for Privy Counsellors. The poll is here. I wish that you could give your opinion there and maybe comment. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Reginald de Warenne[edit]

Hi, Lobsterthermidor. An editor has pointed me to this unusual edit summary by you. Two people edit warring don't by any means "own" that edit war: on the contrary, the sooner it's broken up by a third party, the better. You're a pretty experienced editor, so I think you know that edit warring is considered unconstructive. There is no "3RR process". Also please don't try to intimidate editors from taking a dispute to talk: absolutely anybody can do that. You don't own the dispute either. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC).

I think User:Ealdgyth jumped the gun here by calling in two canvassed reinforcements, yourself and User:hchc2009, to what was at most an edit skirmish. One revert does not make an edit war, it constitutes the start of a perfectly proper WP procedure outlined in the 3RR rule. First Reverts happen thousands of times an hour on WP and each one does not attract this sort of heavy-handed response generated by possible inappropriate notification to contacts of the reverted party.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC))
I reverted. Then you reverted back your changes. Then Hchc2009 (who I did not call in) reverted your revert of my revert of your bold change. Then you reverted Hchc's revert.... which put you over 3RR. 3RR doesn't mean you revert up to (and past) 3 reverts. The best practice is to do the WP:BRD process - which means you make a bold edit, someone else reverts it and then both editors discuss. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Excuse me, Lobsterthermidor? Ealdgyth alerted Hchc2009 and myself (as an admin) after your unusual edit summary. Hchc2009 had at that time already made the edit your summary complained of. And asking for admin input is always perfectly proper. Please don't baselessly accuse somebody of "calling in canvassed reinforcements" and "inappropriate notification". You know those are pretty serious accusations, I presume, since you go so far as to link to the Canvassing guideline. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC).
Ealdgyth says above "Hchc2009 (who I did not call in)"; not supported by the two successive entries in her contributions log (18:07, 18:09, 31 October 2015) (which produced cryptic posts to Hchc2009 and Bishonen), and not supported by Bishonen who says above: "Ealdgyth alerted Hchc2009 and myself (as an admin)". This is not the proper way to alert ad admin, which should be done in a formal and transparent manner. See Wikipedia:Canvassing. I've had enough of this ridiculous bickering.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC))

Sources and page numbers on Merryfield, Ilton[edit]

Hi again, Following your edits to Merryfield, Ilton some "tags" have been added asking for further info which show up as part of my attempt to reduce the number of problems identified at the cleanup listing for WP Somerset. I was wondering if you could help with:

  • Pic caption Ref 21 for the demolition of Merryfield House is cited to Collinson but without a page number. I have looked at Collinson but can't find it - can you help?
Ref 21: Collinson supposed source replaced with correct one:Gatehouse Gazeteer, Merryfield House[3](Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC))
OK I've just formatted it.— Rod talk 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The pic caption "She was the wife of Sir John III Wadham and the collar of roses worn around her neck is said to represent the crest of Wadham" is cited (Ref 14) to a framed information sheet in Ilton Church and a tag has been added asking for a non-primary source. In looking I have found out a bit about collars as symbolism (eg this), however I haven't been able to find a better source for the specific claim re Wadham - can you help?
There probably isn't one, this is a fairly arcane point. The church info-leaflet is a perfectly acceptable primary source, which need to be used with care where bias may be introduced, clearly not relevant here. Primary sources are not per se disallowed by WP, some are fine.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)) Are you asking for a source confirming that the Wadham crest was indeed a rose? I can supply that if req'd.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC))
Yes a source saying the crest was a rose would probably help.— Rod talk 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts, the caption does actually say: "crest of Wadham, a rose argent between a pair of antlers (as visible on the monument to Nicholas II Wadham (died 1609) in Ilminster Church)", can't really be bettered!Crest NicholasWadham Died1608 StMary'sChurch Ilminster Somerset.JPG
  • Perhaps the most difficult is Ref 19 about whether Margaret Seymour was the aunt of Jane Seymour or sister as stated by Collinson (and also Rogers in the reference however I can't access this) - this has been tagged as original research and it seems to be an individual view unless sources can be found.

Are you able to help with these or shall I remove these claims until a source can be found?— Rod talk 18:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I stand by "aunt", the ref is to be found in the WP article on Sir Nicholas I Wadham, which I shall replicate in this article too. For the record it's as follows: Letters Archaeological and Historical Relating to the Isle of Wight by the late Rev. E. Boucher James, Vol.1, London, 1896 "THE TOMB OF MARGARET WADHAM AT CARISBROOKE CHURCH, AND ALEXANDER ROSS", pp.445-50[4][5]

"THE TOMB OF MARGARET WADHAM AT CARISBROOKE CHURCH, AND ALEXANDER ROSS. I have received a courteous letter from Mr. Long, of Portsmouth, a diligent student of local history, in which he points out my mistake in calling Margaret Wadham, whose

tomb is in Carisbrooke church, the sister of Jane Seymour, third wife of Henry VIII, when she was in reality the aunt of that Queen. A suspicion had often crossed my own mind that Margaret belonged to an earlier generation of the Seymour family than Jane, who was the mother of Edward VI. In the absence of any positive evidence upon this point I did not feel justified in contradicting the statement of Worsley in his History of the Isle of Wight\ who says expressly that the Margaret, who was the second wife of Sir Nicholas Wadham, was the sister of Jane Seymour. Worsley is backed up in this account of the relationship between these two ladies of the Seymour family by the still older authority of Sir John Oglander, who, in his MS., under the heading of The Captains of the Island, has the following entry—‘In Henry the VIII's time, one Wadham, a knight, who lyeth buryed in Carisbrook Church with his wife, who was sister to Edward VI his mother/ As the worthy knight of Nunwell was certainly wrong about Sir N. Wadham being buried in Carisbrooke church, we may be the more ready to distrust what he says about Margaret, his wife. In the case of so illustrious a ducal family as that of the Seymours there ought to be no difficulty in making out the pedigree. On this point I had better quote Mr. Long's own words—‘ There were two, if not three, John Seymours in succession before the Sir John, father of Jane. He had three daughters, Jane married to Henry VIII, Elizabeth to Sir A. Oughtred, and Dorothy to Sir Clement Smith, The two last

had second husbands, but neither of them was Sir N. Wadham. The father of this Sir John Seymour was John, living in the reign of Henry VII. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir...etc." (see source for remainder)
Thanks - I've just formatted it.— Rod talk 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Phew! Thanks for your forensic eye!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for helpful responses.— Rod talk 19:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Earldom of Orkney[edit]

Hello. Could you please explain why you moved "Earldom of Orkney" to "Feudal Earldom of Orkney"?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it is a different topic to the similarly named article Earl of Orkney (another "Earldom of Orkney"), a much later title created in the Peerage of Scotland, which title is presently held by the Fitz-Maurice family. The present representative, so far as I understand it, of the feudal Earls of Orkney is Malcolm Sinclair, 20th Earl of Caithness, who in recognition of this, in his coat of arms quarters the arms of the ancient earldom of Orkney, the lymphad. There is likewise a difference between the feudal Earldom of Arran (at present claimed by a Swiss millionaire who owns land formerly forming the caput of the feudal barony) and the two titles Earl of Arran in the Peerage of Ireland, held by the Gore family, and in the Peerage of Scotland, the latter one at present held by the Duke of Hamilton.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC))
So you envisage an article devoted to the medieval earldom, and an article devoted to the peerage created in 1696? OK, but the article that you moved to "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" was about the medieval earldom and doesn't seem to have contained anything about this early modern creation.
I think you should move the article back to where it was, and then take the redirect "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" and create a standalone article for this early modern title. That's the simplest way to handle it. "Earldom of Orkney" about the medieval Viking/Norwegian/Scottish earldom, and "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" about the more modern title. As for "Earl of Orkney", its a glorified list that lists all those who bore the titles. The bulkiness of this list can be trimmed and siphoned off into these other two articles.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
As far as I understand it what is meant by the "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" is exactly what you have called the "medieval Viking/Norwegian/Scottish earldom", which stretches back to pre-history. It is the earldom which existed based on ownership or feudal tenure of land, namely the Orkney Isles, presumably. The "Peerage title" that you have referred to as the "early modern creation" and a "glorified list" would have been created by a monarch (if it followed similar rules to English usage) either by a writ to attend parliament or by letters patent, nothing to do with feudalism, the grantee need not have owned a square inch of land in Orkney. The "glorified list" seems to be the established wikipedia style for peerage titles. I'm going to paste a copy of this discussion to the talk pages of the two articles.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC))
Well, the move doesn't make sense to me. I'll see if I can move it back. An article concerning the political history of the earldom seems to be most at home at "Earldom of Orkney", whilst an article that lists all titleholders is most at home at "Earl of Orkney". Why complicate matters? I've never seen "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" used (and Google Books, Google Scholar, Questia, and JSTOR don't turn up any hits for this terminology either). If you feel strongly about "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" you could follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
One of the clearest explanations I have found of the "Scottish Feudal Earldom" is in 2009 written report of Lord Lyon King of Arms (re a current claim to the Feudal Earldom of Arran), especially pp.11-12. It is an entirely separate concept from the "peerage" earldom. The problem with the two almost parallel articles as they now exist is that the one ostensibly about the "peerage" earldom (i.e. listing all titleholders), needs to be stripped of text dealing with the feudal earldom, which needs to be merged into the latter article. I am willing to work with you on that if you wish.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC))
Thanks for the link. I see what you're getting at. I don't see a problem transferring the 'territorial' text over. Would you leave the list of the medieval earls there, or move that over too?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Great, I would transfer the list of all the medieval earls to the article on the feudal Earldom, and start the list in the "peerage" article at the first holder of the first peerage created, in the 16th century I seem to recall. I would have one early section header in the "peerage" article called "Feudal Earldom of Orkney" and just have a main article tag under it, i.e., see other article. If that suits, I'll have a go at it, unless you want to yourself.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC))

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Richard Pembridge[edit]

Hi, I'm Dat GuyWiki. Lobsterthermidor, thanks for creating Richard Pembridge!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This could be a really good article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Stub article, you're a bit quick off the mark!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Against consensus[edit]

You were too bold at Harleian Collection and I don't understand how you moved the page but failed to move the associated talk page. Please revert yourself. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No such thing as "too WP:BOLD". Please make your views known on the talk page, to get this discussion moving. You will see there was support from at least 1 editor for a move, let's see if we can flush out a few more.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC))

Copyright violations[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to The Grange, Broadhembury has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Jolly Ω Janner 00:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert 00:00, 4 March 2016‎ Jolly Janner: the text quoted is fully referenced, with full credit to author. This is not a copyright issue, but a mere quotation, perfectly proper.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a puzzle for you[edit]

Fancy a bit of a Devonian mystery? I've been trying to sort out the genealogy of the early Acland baronets, and I've found something peculiar. Sir John Acland, 1st Baronet had rather a number of sons, the number varying somewhat depending on whether you consult standard peerage works like Burke's or Vivian's Visitation (the parish registers of Stoke D'Abernon have revealed some that died young and appear in neither; sadly, the registers from Broadclyst before 1653 don't appear to exist or we should doubtless know more). The standard baronetage reference works (going back to Wotton in 1727, the first to cover the Aclands) all claim that Sir John, who died in August 1647, was succeeded by his eldest son, Sir Francis, who died in 1649 and was followed by his brother Sir John. But the petition to the House of Commons to have his estate removed from sequestration, made on 28 March 1648, came from John Acland, described as "sonn and heire" of Sir John; the petition states that in addition to John, there are three younger sons (presumably Robert, Hugh, and Charles) and a daughter to be provided for. If this is accurate, it seems that Francis must have died before 1649; perhaps he even predeceased his father and never succeeded to the baronetcy. Do you know of anything that could throw light on this puzzle? Choess (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting post. Certainly seems a mystery, I can't fault your argument having read your source. The Heraldic Visitation of 1620 was submitted to the heralds and signed by the 29 year-old John Acland (later 1st Bt) as shown in italics in Vivian's 1895 text, and this makes no mention of wife or children in 1620. Thus Vivian's source for the post-1620 pedigree was probably Burke's as you suggest above. Is there no mural monument in Stoke Dabernon Church to Francis? If there is it will hopefully say "Bart", which would be useful. Else the Aclands have been counting their ordinal numbers wrong! seems unlikely. Anne Acland's book pp.10-11 refers to the above petition to Parliament by the 13 year old Sir John Acland, 3rd Bt, and mentions April 1648 quoting his "three younger brothers", and she certainly calls him the 3rd Bt and states that "his elder brother had died". So as you say Sir Francis must have died pre-March 1648, not in 1649 as Vivian states. But then Anne Acland's diagrammatic pedigree in the inside back cover of her book states Sir Francis, 2nd Bt. died 1649, so she too seems to have missed the point you're making, which she herself made! Perhaps Francis only survived his father a few days and thus just left no mark on history, save notching up the Bt. numeral by one? I would suggest this merits giving Sir John Acland, 3rd Baronet his own WP article where the petition can be dealt with and the matter expanded upon. You appear to be most qualified to do that, if you have time, it would be a useful addition.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC))

Courtney Earls of Devon[edit]

Lobs, if you're going to move all the earls to a double-mumbered title, when you get to the fifteenth-century earls (in fact, probably mid-fourteenth) could you drop the "de" as per modern RS? I think I started to do this a while back, but took my eye off the ball. Hope all's well. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, thanks. You're on the ball, but I'm afraid just a bit too late! I've done up to and including the 5th/13th Earl, as "de", as they stood, and unfortunately the remaining two already have no "de" to worry about. By the way, "Thomas Courtenay, 6th/14th Earl of Devon (1432–1461)", has two WP articles! (which finally prompted me to tidy up the confusion as you have noticed). The "de"'s can of course be removed from what I've done if you think it important, but must be certain of cut-off date, and rationale, hopefully backed by a good source. Regards.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

The West Country Challenge[edit]

Hi, Are you going to join in at: Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge. I'd particularly appreciate your help with getting the right things included in the core articles & missing articles lists at this stage as we are still preparing for the contest.— Rod talk 20:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a monster task you're taking on, blows my mind a bit. I'm quite focussed at the moment at filling in gaps in my own areas of interest, so am probably going to stay more parochial. I wish you luck.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC))

Sounds like original research[edit]

"This was possibly Christopher Hadley...". If this possible identification has been published by a reliable source, please add the reference where that identification was made. If there isn't a reliable source, then you cannot make that tentative connection yourself in a Wikipedia article.  —SMALLJIM  12:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your previous edit to the same article (Manor of Affeton): "She was possibly one of his first-cousins..." appears to have the same problem.  —SMALLJIM  12:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Vivian's Visitations[edit]

I noticed that the title of Vivian's The Visitations of the County of Devon... was wrong everywhere you pasted it, so I've corrected it in 400+ pages, using AWB (which also made some incidental automatic corrections). I wrongly changed a few of Colby's The Visitation of the County of Devon in the Year 1620, but have fixed them. Please ensure you amend your copy source to make "Visitation" plural. Thanks!  —SMALLJIM  19:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The Grange, Broadhembury[edit]

Hi! Why are you edit-warring at The Grange, Broadhembury? What exactly do you think that will achieve? I assume you've been around for long enough to know that undoing another editor's work three times in a 24-hour period can result in suspension of your editing privileges? I don't intend to file a report, but strongly suggest that you quickly self-revert. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, restoring an article virtually deleted by repeated edits bordering on vandalism (in my opinion) is an act of protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. Not edit warring. If you don't like the subject matter of the article, which is a manorial history, a very well established subject written about since the 16th century by eminent county historians (see Richard Carew's Survey of Cornwall for a pioneering work in this field), then that is a policy matter you should raise at RfC, as another editor has suggested on the talk page. Pending that, please do not stubify a carefully written and sourced article which is well within the scope of Wikipedia. Now if you have problems with the long quotes, that is something I possibly agree with you on, and I'm willing to work with you on that if you wish.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC))
I have removed your inflamatory section title "edit warring", not nice!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC))

RfC on Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury[edit]

Sorry to intrude, but I daren't alter this myself. I think you want the link in your RfC to the 'pre-dispute text...' to be a permalink to whichever version of the article you want to highlight – like the '"stubified" text' link is. At the moment it's a link to the article history.  —SMALLJIM  10:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring notice...[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at The Grange, Broadhembury shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; you have now made the same edit 6 times. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

As an interested party in this dispute, please do not attempt to intimidate other users with threats. Your edit has been reverted per talk.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC))

Hchc2009[edit]

Oh dear, what a fool you've made yourself look. Tell me, Sherlock, where's the evidence? CassiantoTalk 21:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is given in the post. I await the clarification as requested.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC))

Speedy deletion nomination of Denys Rolle[edit]

A tag has been placed on Denys Rolle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "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. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Buildings in Barnstaple has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Buildings in Barnstaple, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to Manchester Grammar School. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Three-letter disambiguation pages has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Three-letter disambiguation pages, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lethbridge baronets has been nominated for discussion[edit]

FYI: The Category:Lethbridge family category is involved in this too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lethbridge baronets, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Former manors in England[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Former manors in England requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

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 "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. —swpbT 13:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Former manors in Gloucestershire[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Former manors in Gloucestershire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

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 "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. —swpbT 13:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Gilbert Paige[edit]

Hello Lobsterthermidor! While working on something else, I've found a document that (I think) sorts out the question of Gilbert's parentage. If you email me (M.Steggle at shu.ac.uk) will be happy to send you a scan. Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.86.206 (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, please feel free to contribute the information to the article yourself, make sure you add a reference to the source! If you do not wish to do this, please discuss your findings with me here. It would be a useful addition to the article.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I won't post the scan here since it'd infringe copyright, and I'd prefer not to make the edit myself because it doesn't really fit wikipedia's policy of no original research, but the bit of paper is - National Archives: PCC admon. act bk. 1591, f. 167. This is an entry in the register of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, dated February 1591. In this, four relatives of William Page "nuper de Plymouth" [until recently of Plymouth] ask for letters of administration to be taken out following his death in order to look after his estate for his four legitimate but under-age children, Gilbert, Job, Matthew, and Mary. This document does not state that Page has been murdered, but the dates and place match with the pamphlet. So it would look as if Gilbert is the son of William Page and, presumably, his previous, non-murderous wife (the pamphlet mentions he is a widower when he marries Eulalia). I haven't found a baptism entry for Gilbert, but Matthew, son of William Page, is baptised at St Andrew's Plymouth on 1 October 1584, and he could be that third child. This is in the context of a bit of ongoing research I'm doing on Page of Plymouth and the texts associated with him. All the best, Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.39.53 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Matt! Very interesting, but I think you are correct to state that your deduction, no doubt highly plausible, would not meet WP's rules re OR. Nevertheless I will copy this post to the talkpage of the article, as background or suggestion for further sourcing. I wish you well with your ongoing work! If you do publish something, then perhaps it might qualify for inclusion. Best wishes(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC))

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Lobsterthermidor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Estates in Powys has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Estates in Powys, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

An unexpected barnstar[edit]

Devon Barnstar of National Merit.jpg The WikiProject Devon Barnstar of Merit
To Lobsterthermidor, in recognition of the dozens and dozens of articles that you've contributed on topics related to Devon. I know we've had our disagreements (and some of what you do still makes me wince!), but neither of us is going away, and it is a New Year, so I also want to take this opportunity to send you my best wishes for 2017.  —SMALLJIM  18:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Lobsterthermidor by  —SMALLJIM  on 18:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Knight reference[edit]

I've been tidying up Brightley, Chittlehampton which is mostly your work, and have come across three references to "Knight" (pages 35, 36 and 38). There's no further detail and since "Knight" is such a common word in this context, I can't locate what source is meant. Could you provide the full reference, please? TIA.  —SMALLJIM  15:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Update. I've found the reference; you left it behind when you created Brightley out of what you'd added to Chittlehampton. You added the ref back in 2012 in this edit, it says "Knight, Rae (Ed.), The Book of Chittlehampton, A North Devon Parish, Tiverton, 2000". I assume it's this book at Google Books, although the details don't agree – Google says Book of Chittlehampton: Celebrating a North Devon Parish by John Andow, Stella Levy, published by Halsgrove in 2000, ISBN 9781841140575. Would you check, and add the full reference to Brightley, Chittlehampton, please?  —SMALLJIM  15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added it myself. If its wrong, it's your fault ;-)  —SMALLJIM  12:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Image sizes[edit]

Hello again. When you add an image to an article, you should now omit the |200px parameter. See WP:IMAGESIZE which is policy and says "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width." It's printed in bold, so it must be important! Hope this helps.  —SMALLJIM  20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you're still adding the px parameter to your images. Please stop. You've been advised of the policy.  —SMALLJIM  11:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I would further recommend you stop doing this, as you have just done on Thorne, Ottery St Mary. Jolly Ω Janner 05:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I did not know that! Will omit the px in future - might slip up on the odd occasion as it's an ingrained habit of several years!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC))
The policy is not widely followed, but certainly setting images below the 220px default is very rarely good. Putting eg the lead image at 300px is often a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Using just thumb is OK with me, thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

d.v.p.[edit]

I've undone your edit to List of Latin phrases (D). There are no Google hits on Decessit vivente patre (or matre) in a genealogical context, but many on Decessit vita patris which you have removed. I've also removed the entry for Defunctus vivente patre, which you added in 2012, but is poorly attested - all the Google hits appear to originate from this page, and it doesn't appear in Google Scholar. Please ensure that you do the appropriate research before making changes, and don't let your own opinions of what is correct overrule the usefulness of WP for the typical user, if that's what happened here.  —SMALLJIM  11:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Elinor Fowell[edit]

I've removed the detail you added to William Fowell about a monumental brass to his wife. The sources you cite are not reliable and I can't find any RS that says the brass was to Elinor Fowell. As I'm sure you read, the britishlistedbuildings page just says "In north trancept [sic] a small brass depicting a woman, found in 1862 and reset in frame on wall." Crossing wrote a bit more in his Ancient Stone Crosses of Dartmoor... (1902): "In the north transept, which was restored in 1862, is a stained window, with figures of the four evangelists, and in the east wall of the same is a brass, having engraved upon it the effigy of a female. It was discovered in the year just mentioned, close at hand, along with another, which was unfortunately destroyed."

Holloway's book, Elinor with the Pleading Eyes, may not be a "story", as you called it - a bulletin board comment calls it a history of the Vowell family - short of any reviews, you'd have to find a copy to check, I think.  —SMALLJIM  00:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the same passage from Fowelscombe.  —SMALLJIM  15:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

File:WraxallSomersetChurch.jpg[edit]

Hello, please correct the license of the image, which is obviosly wrong. The image was indeed not published befor 1923. Thanks in advance. --Matthiasb (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC))

Hillersdon House[edit]

I have suggested that Hillersdon House be renamed to Manor of Hillersdon as since you have added a lot of additional history of the manor, it is no longer primarily about the house. I would welcome your input over at Talk:Hillersdon_House. --NHSavage (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see my response at Talk:Hillersdon_House. I agree with you which makes the consensus 3:1 in my reckoning! Text on manor split out to new article Manor of Hillersdon.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on George Slee[edit]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.coldridge-village.co.uk/slee-2.htm. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought I had reworded it sufficiently; never mind. I think the text I used as source was in fact itself copied verbatim from a 19th century source, hence the slightly archaic language. I will locate that out of copyright source and try again, thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:BarrellsHall.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:BarrellsHall.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:WoolpackInnBeckinton.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The file File:WoolpackInnBeckinton.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused derivative work

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kelly hi! 09:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Arwenack: Caption to Aerial View[edit]

Hello Lobsterthermidor, Two years ago you added an aerial view to the article about Arwenack, with a caption tentatively dating the image to circa 1840. I have added a note in the article's Talk page to the effect that the date is more probably mid-1860s or later. That would, I think, still be consistent with the "transition of shipping between sail and steam"). As I am not certain either, I haven't edited the caption, but you may wish to revisit it. Best wishes --Frans Fowler (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have pasted your text into the file description.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC))

Hunkins[edit]

Hiya. Why move the bishop? Do you expect the governor to supplant the bishop as primary topic (at Joseph Hunkin)? If not, why disambiguate the bishop? DBD 09:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess his middle name "Wellington" just cries out to be used as a disambiguation handle. But you probably make a good point. If you think it is worth reinstating, please go ahead.(Lobsterthermidor (talk))

Drewe family of Broadhembury[edit]

Yo, LobsterT., hope you're well. I see you coming back to work on this- I'd forgotten all about it- the thing is you know, it's 'your' article, but it's got my name on the creation edit. Is there anything we can do about that? — fortunavelut luna 13:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a modest fellow, enjoy the credit yourself if you will, lol.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC))
Heh :) But if you're taking it to GA, that would set your seal on it. — fortunavelut luna 11:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

John Fortescue (Captain of Meaux)[edit]

See User talk: Smalljim Clifford Mill (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Lobsterthermidor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Quasi resurrection has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Quasi resurrection, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Editor2020 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)