User talk:Smalljim

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

How to use talk pages: (guidelines from Template:User talk top)

  • Please continue any conversation where it was started.
Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here.
I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
Continue existing conversations under existing headings.
Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • Indent your comments when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your comments automatically using ~~~~.

Talk page archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11


The reappearance of A Dartmoor book[edit]

You will be pleased to hear that A Dartmoor Century has reappeared in my flat. It was hiding in a wardrobe with the other missing book, Walks in the Dartmoor National Park 2, South West Dartmoor. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Duncan. Things not being where they should be is an obstinate annoyance, so I'm glad you found them. It sounds as if you have the same 'too many books' problem as me (boxes in the garage in my case). I still haven't acquired a copy of Somers Cocks' book, though as my absence from here indicates, my interests have temporarily moved on to other things. I'll be back :)  —SMALLJIM  10:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh I dream of a garage! I recently cobbled together a temporary bookcase out of banana boxes from the supermarket to enable me to reclaim the settee. I wouldn't describe the problem as "too many books" rather as "lack of a library wing on my flat" and "lack of a tame librarian to corral them all". Hope you are well, DuncanHill (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi again. The real problem, for a certain type of person, is that books always expand to overflow whatever space is available for them, so neither a garage nor a library wing are viable solutions. I have a friend who used his oven for storage and just used the rings on top for cooking. Several of my "temporary" bookshelves are supported by the cardboard rolls that held A4 rolls of photocopy paper in the late 1970s. Good and sturdy, just the right height for many paperbacks, and look reasonable if painted :)  —SMALLJIM  10:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svgHello, Smalljim. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Boxleitner[edit]

I added a new spouse to the page and the infobox disappeared. How do I get the infobox including the photo back in view? Pokerdealer123 (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Pokerdealer123

Pokerdealer123, you obviously figured this out yourself. Good! You should provide a reliable source for the info you added though, else someone will probably remove it as an unverified statement.  —SMALLJIM  22:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a note: another bot fixed this before I saw the above.  —SMALLJIM  16:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Smalljim.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you! It must be time to get the decorations up...  —SMALLJIM  19:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

War memorials[edit]

Thanks for your comments on the Devon County article, and for your offer of feedback on other FACs. Sticking to articles about Devon is a noble cause. There's so much work that still needs doing on Wikipedia it's breathtaking. But one project at a time. War memorials have been keeping me busy for a year now and I've got a way to go before I even finish the Lutyens' memorials (though all 44 of them have articles now!). But I will come back and do Exeter (City) War Memorial at some point, and Ilfracombe's needs an article. So does Torquay's (a cenotaph—sort of—but by Blomfield of all people!)), and there are probably several others. Something needs doing with Plymouth Naval Memorial, but that might be best merged into one article covering Chatham and Portsmouth (Portsmouth's own war memorial is also impressive), and some of the other nautical-themed memorials around Plymouth Hoe might be notable. The sheer number of them is staggering. There's something very moving, and deeply upsetting, about a small village war memorial when you realise you can't see as many houses as there are names on the memorial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Harry. I've always admired people who can follow large projects like that through to completion (unless they get totally possessive about their own work, of course). It's not in my nature to do that – I flit about a lot, as my contribs indicate. I have, though, collected rather a lot of books about Devon, and sporadically feel some responsibility to make use of all that paper and printing ink. Let me know if it might contain anything useful for something you're doing: I'll be pleased to look it up for you.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Smalljim![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you! Now it'll soon be time to take the decorations down again ;-)  —SMALLJIM  18:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Smalljim![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you! Best wishes to you too.  —SMALLJIM  10:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we talk about Huggle?[edit]

Hi Smalljim,

As part of the Edit Review Improvements project, we are exploring ways in which new filtering capabilities can better support different review activities. As part of this effort we are considering how some of the ideas could be integrated into Huggle among other tools, and we want to better understand how these tools are used, identify where and how the new filters can be more useful, and discuss some initial ideas.

We plan to organise a small discussion session during the coming weeks, and since you already provided useful feedback on the ERI-Huggle talk page, we think you are an ideal candidate to participate. If you have time for a quick 30min. session, let us know.

To participate, please email the following information to me, pginer@wikimedia.org:

  • Username
  • city/time zone
  • Best time to talk to you?
  • Email where we can reach you
  • Please use the subject line: Huggle User Conversations

Thanks! Pginer-WMF (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pginer-WMF: I thank you for the invitation, but I assume this is some sort of live discussion and I'd be no use in that kind of environment. If I can provide any information in my own time, I'd be happy to try to help, though most of what I could say is already in my post on mw. I should also point out that I haven't done any recent changes patrolling for some nine months now, and I don't at this stage envisage returning to do so in the near future.  —SMALLJIM  22:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right. The session was organised as a live discussion where participants use screenshare and voice to show how they use Huggle. As the project moves forward there will be more opportunities to participate in different formats. Thanks for your useful comments on the talk page and feel free to provide more. -- Pginer-WMF (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hillersdon House[edit]

I have suggested that Hillersdon House be renamed to Manor of Hillersdon as its contents have changed significantly since it was first created. I would welcome your input over at Talk:Hillersdon_House. --NHSavage (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey[edit]

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Devon?[edit]

Hi Smalljim, I hope you don't mind my dropping by, but I'm on a clutching at straws mission to try and find someone who lives either in or near Newton Abbot, Devon, in the hope that they could take a free image for me with regards to my next featured article. I see you have had a little to do with the Devon Wikiproject, which suggested to me that you either live/lived there or there was another connection, which is why i've come to you; I apologise if I'm barking up the wrong tree. If you do live near to there, or if you know of someone who does, I'd be very greatful for any help. It worked so well for me on my last FA, when I needed an image, I thought I'd try my luck again. Obviously, I'm conscious of OUTing so please feel free to email me rather than post here. Best regards. CassiantoTalk 11:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Sure, let me know what you want and I'll see if I can oblige.  —SMALLJIM  10:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. I need an image of the two buildings which are between BHS (if it still exists) and Graham's Cafe, Union Street, preferably the top parts, although it doesn't matter if the shop fronts get included. For ease, see this as I'm not sure if either of the two shops I mention above, still exist; in fact I'm pretty sure at least one of them doesn't, including the pensions of the poor bugger's that used to work there. Any help, much appreciated. CassiantoTalk 11:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
That's in Union Street, Torquay, not Newton Abbot. I have to ask why those two buildings: is that where Matcham lived? Or do you really want a photo of the nearby Central Cinema (ex-Lyceum Theatre) here, per your text and this?  —SMALLJIM  18:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
My apologies. I need the photo of the properties in Union Street as it was the Matcham's address (next to BHS) while they were living there in the 1870s; the one next door to Graham's was the Matcham Employers, the Bridgemans. Seeing as I've got my arse confused with my elbow, I'll understand if you'll be unable to do this. CassiantoTalk 21:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
No, that's OK, anywhere around S. Devon is pretty much the same. I can get a photo, but it may well be a couple of weeks or so.  —SMALLJIM  18:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
That would be ever so helpful and much appreciated, thank you. Please, no rush for this as I still have a fair bit to do, writing wise. Thanks again. CassiantoTalk 19:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Two buildings on Union St Torquay.jpg
Central Cinema, Abbey Road, Torquay.jpg

@Cassianto: You were in luck! I had cause to go that way yesterday and with a short diversion was able to get the photo. I took one of the Central Cinema too, since there apparently wasn't one on Commons, and there is a Matcham connection. HTH  —SMALLJIM  12:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Jim, that is ever so helpful. Thank you very much! I shall add these to the Matcham goings on in my sandbox. I will read up on that cinema; it's great to see it still standing as most of his buildings have long since disappeared. Thank you so much. CassiantoTalk 15:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Happy to help a likely FA that's related in some way to Devon!  —SMALLJIM  17:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

John Fortescue (Captain of Meaux)[edit]

Dear SmallJim

Being interested in the history of West Country people and places, like others I have had to put up with the heavy presence of LobsterThermidor under his many aliases. In the spirit of give and take, I have not seriously crossed swords over his many idiosyncrasies until today.

He reverted some changes I had made to the article above, trying to prune some of its archaisms, eccentricities and errors. When I tried to correct some of the false information he had reinserted, unfortunately he was online and reverted my reverts of his reverts. Childish behaviour I want nothing to do with.

I believe you have slapped his wrists before and am therefore asking if you would please think of doing so again.

Clifford Mill (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Clifford Mill. I'm glad to hear that you're interested in Devon – there are few such editors around today. I'm one of the absentees, partly due to Lobsterthermidor's intransigence. I must correct your assertion about his many aliases though: I don't know of any evidence that he's used any other accounts. I don't see his archaic style of writing or excursions into unrelated topics as major problems either, except when he changes any improvements back to his preferred version. However, his extensive use of ancient unreliable sources and original research, and his combative attitude and lack of interest in the community are, to me, problems for Wikipedia, and I still believe that he should be publishing his research on a website of his own, not here.
You're aware that I have in the past tried to get the community involved but was unable to gain any interest. His contributions give a good first impression – lots of photos and references, but they are on such obscure topics that it's necessary to invest a great deal of time to tease out the flaws, and very few editors will do that unless there's evidence of intentional wrongdoing. I did for a while, but no longer!
He still pops up regularly on my watchlist and although I make the occasional edit when I see something particularly egregious, I no longer try to engage directly with him. The unvoiced community consensus is that the benefits of his edits outweigh the problems, but I believe this consensus is based on a lack of knowledge. If you choose to do the necessary research and try to get the community involved again, do keep me informed.
Ping Lobsterthermidor out of courtesy.  —SMALLJIM  12:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your reply. Since writing to you on 20 October, this particular article has been padded out with swathes of garbage. I see no point in attempting to engage with such an obtuse person and am only sorry that Wikipedia's administrators seem unable to curb his widespread manipulation of articles under multiple false identities. Until he is banned, I shall avoid contributing further on the past of Devon and adjoining counties. Clifford Mill (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I've given it a much needed scrub... Hchc2009 (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
And here's me thinking there's nothing interesting in Weare Giffard! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I see you've joined the Devon WikiProject, Harry. As the lucky 44th member, you win the enviable task of cleaning the place up!  —SMALLJIM  15:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Seriously though, is anyone aware of Lobsterthermidor abusing multiple accounts? Twice claimed by Clifford Mill – I can understand the frustration, but provide evidence or retract, I say.  —SMALLJIM  15:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Not having written down suspicious identities on coming across them, all I can suggest are Renamed user 2931-018233 and Lionheart0317. Of the latter, I am pretty confident. There are others, using IP addresses or mobile phones, but I've made no note of them anywhere. If, by the way, you would like to see an utterly trivial example of rudeness, obstinacy and absurdity under his own name, just see the recent revision history of Nicholas Carew (died 1311)....Clifford Mill (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Not the first one, for several reasons. Lionheart0317 looks more likely, but I'm not convinced. Any thoughts, Hchc2009? A couple of involved IPs seem to be 74.106.245.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 173.59.238.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but they're in the USA. There's no evidence of collusion that I can see anyway, so it's not a heinous crime even if it was all the same person.  —SMALLJIM  23:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear SmallJim,

I have never made any edits to the John Fortescue (Captain of Meaux) page or the Nicholas Carew (died 1311) page! I also do not use any other aliases. I felt it was necessary to respond since I was being wrongly accused!

Regards, Lionheart0317 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionheart0317 (talkcontribs) 01:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If I was wrong, I am sorry and do apologise. The problems remain, however: uncritical reliance on outdated and often unreliable sources in print (visitation pedigrees, for example, were usually accepted on the word of the applicant in exchange for a fee, while often old county histories sycophantically glorified the landowning families who bought them); avoidance of modern online sources which can be checked; hagiography of gentry and nobility who may have no intrinsic notability; inability to discern significant detail from dross; use of Latin rather than English; use of archaic rather than 21st century English (instead of having children like the rest of us plebs, these elevated souls have “issue” or “progeny”); and downright arrogance and rudeness in avoiding reasoned discussion and reverting other editors who try to remove, correct or enhance the text. Good luck to you all....Clifford Mill (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both.  —SMALLJIM  22:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Manor of Alverdiscott[edit]

Just to continue this, the newly-created article Manor of Alverdiscott exemplifies many of the content problems that we've been discussing. I've added a comment to its talk page.  —SMALLJIM  15:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Smalljim. 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)

John Fortescue (Captain of Meaux)[edit]

From the discussions on Talk:John Fortescue (Captain of Meaux) it seems quite doubtful that he was called Captain of Meaux. To me, the title 0f the article should be changed to drop Captain of Meaux and replace it with something else, perhaps (died after 1432). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure. If you google "john fortescue meaux" there are a number of hits that include Meaux in the item title. So even if he wasn't captain, "Meaux" seems to be the word that best distinguishes him from his namesakes, and that is a significant factor in determining an article title. You could propose a change on the article talk page, but I doubt if there'd be much interest. It's probably best to move the article to the title that you think is best and see if it sticks. I hope this is some help,  —SMALLJIM  23:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed[edit]

Hello Smallerjim! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MusikBot II talk 20:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: I'm not likely to be using AWB in the near future so I'm happy to let it go for now.  —SMALLJIM  16:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Heyy[edit]

Muskan1017 (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Muskan1017

I know wanted to why did you delete the article on capitalvia. What changes should be made int he content so that it can be published on Wikipedia. Thankyou! :D

CapitalVia was deleted by User:Yunshui on 22 March after it had been tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, see WP:G11. I had nothing to do with this - you'd do better to ask the people involved.  —SMALLJIM  11:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I think he's referring to User:Muskan1017/sandbox, deleted by me, replied User talk:Muskan1017 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. I hope he heeds your message.  —SMALLJIM  09:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Plutella polaris[edit]

You deleted the Plutella polaris article in 2014 as part of a mass deletion of articles created by one of User:Stern review~enwiki's socks. With the rediscovery of the species (the first specimen in 142 years to be collected and first female specimen ever), I've been meaning to create an article on the species. Figured I'd check if the deleted page had any meaningful content that might be useable or useful first, though. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Witty! There's not much there:

{{italic title}} {{Taxobox | image = | image_width = | image_caption = | regnum = [[Animal]]ia | phylum = [[Arthropod]]a | classis = [[Insect]]a | ordo = [[Lepidoptera]] | familia = [[Plutellidae]] | genus = ''[[Plutella]]'' | species = '''''P. polaris''''' | binomial = ''Plutella polaris'' | binomial_authority = (Zeller, [1880)]) | synonyms = }} '''''Plutella polaris''''' is a [[moth]] of the [[Plutellidae]] family. Zeller used the scientific name in 1880. ==References== {{reflist}} * [http://lepidoptera.pro/taxonomy/11640 Plutella polaris in lepidoptera] [[Category:Animals described in 1880]] [[Category:Plutellidae]] {{Butterfly-stub}}

Good luck with the revival.  —SMALLJIM  09:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup, the standard Lepidoptera sub-stub then (other than the wrong stub-tag, anyway. But yeah, we've got a several tens of thousands like that/marginally better/marginally worse lingering about, several tens of thousands equally-blatant stubs that aren't that low on info, a couple thousand borderline-start stubs, and maybe 1500 all in all at start or higher)
Nothing I couldn't figure out myself, and no sources I wouldn't have known how to find, either. Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for the good luck wished! The article is now live. Face-smile.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

(Reposted by Lionheart0317 from his talk page) You are in violation of WP:3RR on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. I have no desire to see you blocked, but you'd better reverse your last few edits pretty quickly.  —SMALLJIM  21:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

SMALLJIM, You have violated the agreements made on the talk page and the third party opinion. I have no desire to block you, unless you agree to stand by your word. I am more than willing to discuss your disagreements on sources or facts on the talk page once again. Cheers, Lionheart0317 (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

SMALLJIM, Your desire to reverse factual and sourced contributions to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville is duly noted. The facts to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville were discussed on the talk page, including the sources which contradict the unreliable source you choose to mention as factually accurate. If your only engagement in an edit war is to get me blocked, it points to your underhanded actions and previous false statements made about me on Wikipedia. You have also previously retracted other statements I have called you out on as being false. I'm open to an amenable solution to this matter, but that doesn't seem to be your agenda. Cheers, --Lionheart0317 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you not know about the three revert rule? If not then I suggest you quickly comment on the noticeboard to say so and explain that it was an oversight, not to be repeated.  —SMALLJIM  22:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lionheart0317: I'll try one last attempt at explaining how Wikipedia works, though this is repetition of what you've been told several times in different forms. Richardson is a well-respected published author on certain areas of medieval genealogy. He is a reliable source for this subject and neither you not I, as mere Wikipedia editors, are empowered to say that he, or any other acknowledged expert (Weis, Roskell, etc.), is not. Since experts continue to disagree about the facts of Philippa's parentage, our job is to reflect that uncertainty in our article (but only briefly as it is peripheral to the main subject of the article, William Bonville). As mere editors we do not dig so deeply as to challenge the reasons for the experts' opinions – those discussions take place in forums such as soc.genealogy.medieval, WikiTree, etc. By providing new evidence or novel ideas, such forums may in time persuade experts to publish revised views, and it is only then that we can reflect them in our articles (except, perhaps Richardson's own posts on s.g.m - see WP:SPS).
So, unfortunately for you, you cannot discredit a published expert yourself, and you cannot fill an article with masses of irrelevant content. A further misfortune for you is that you have come across me who is prepared to go to quite long lengths to see that Wikipedia's principles are upheld so that it remains a valuable resource. You ask for an amenable solution to this matter and there is one: it is for you to accept how Wikipedia works.  —SMALLJIM  23:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@SMALLJIM, you don't need to lecture me on how Wikipedia works. Your opinion of who YOU believe is a well-respected published author is simply your opinion. If you cared to notice, I have not removed the source citation for Douglas Richardson. Your view of one author's reputation does not make that author infallible or the sole authority on a Wikipedia subject. Nevertheless, I have abided by the third party's opinion on the inclusion of a footnote mentioning the contradictory evidence concerning Philippa's relationship to William, 1st Baron Bonville. Furthermore, I have already pointed out and referenced the errors in Douglas Richardson's works. I'm not discrediting Richardson's works, merely pointing out that competent and well-respected authors in the realm of medieval genealogy have already written about Richardson's errors (this has been discussed at length on the talk page of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville). It should also be noted that Richardson's own posts on forums like S.G.M are his own self-promotion, to sell his self-published books and to attest to his alleged authority. Any Wikipedian caring to dig deeper into that fact are more than welcome to discover that for themselves on sites like soc.genealogy.medieval, WikiTree, TAG, etc.
So, give me an example of one source or citation that I have contributed to on this subject that wasn't relevant or applicable content? I reject your claim that I have not contributed to the quality of this Wikipedia subject. I also reject your insinuation that I have contributed false information or false facts to this subject.
Finally, retract your 3RR Edit warring noticeboard. I have undid the Richardson edit. If you're such a conscientious editor, why haven't you listed all of the sources that mention Philippa as the aunt, cousin, and niece to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. If you've contributed so much to the quality of the William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville article, why haven't you included those citations from reliable and well-respected self-published authors yet? Users have access to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville's talk page to learn the truth for themselves. For the record: I, not you, have contributed more to the value of the William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville article! --Lionheart0317 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You wrote: "@SMALLJIM, you don't need to lecture me on how Wikipedia works."
If you know how Wikipedia works, but refuse to abide by its processes then you are engaging in disruptive editing. Your article edits speak much louder than all the irrelevance and disparagement that you churn out in your talk space edits. (comment amended by author) Why does it matter so much to you that Philippa is accepted as Bonville's daughter?  —SMALLJIM  11:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Smalljim, I am more than willing to collaborate with you on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville's page or any other Wikipedia subject for that matter, even if a disagreement exists. Also, hopefully, in a more civil and productive manner. However, with that said and for the sake of argument, please read some of the sources that were recently listed by other editors on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville's page. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate it if you would strike out the unwarranted accusations you've made against me, mainly on your talk page. See WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL.  —SMALLJIM  23:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lionheart0317: I note that despite making some attempt to change the comments on your talk page, you didn't take any further action after your edit was reverted because you did not follow the guidance. I ask again if you would kindly strike out your uncivil comments.  —SMALLJIM  22:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Smalljim, I am not going to change any comments on my talk page, regardless of what you feel, think, or suspect. And certainly not because of your opinions. Civility doesn't seem to be in your vocabulary. False accusations which you initially started are uncivil! Factual statements are civil! I'm also tired of you polluting up my talk page with your petty dribble. You've created your own perils by your own comments and actions. You've done the damage, now live with the consequences. You neither own Wikipedia nor do you own specific Wikipedia pages, as you perpetuate your administrator abuse. I already see that you are reverting, cutting, pasting, and deleting reliable and verifiable references on other pages dealing with the Bonville and Grenville families. Again, for no reason at all, being compelled and driven by your petty animus as verifiable and reliable sources are already listed. Your simple "tidy up refs" explanation just doesn't cut it, buddy! You might want to read WP:OWN. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Richardson and Bonville[edit]

@Lionheart0317: I'm naturally disappointed that you don't feel able to withdraw your statements (particularly here). I've reviewed the civility guidelines to see if there's anything I've overlooked, but there doesn't seem to be. Unless things get really out of hand, it looks like it's a problem that we need to cope with ourselves. However, if you still feel really strongly that I've misused my position as an admin you should read WP:ADMINABUSE, though naturally I hope that you won't think that taking the action detailed there is necessary.

Regarding the content dispute, I assume that you're still of the opinion that the articles should only mention Philippa Bonville as William Bonville's daughter, and that Douglas Richardson shouldn't be used because he is not a reliable source. There are things you can do in that regard. You could ask for another third opinion and/or post a question to the Reliable sources noticeboard. You might also find this discussion from 2013 of interest. I hope this helps.  —SMALLJIM  13:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

For reference, the articles we're talking about are William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville, Margaret Grey, and Manor of Bideford. Previous discussion is mostly at Talk:William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville/Archive 1, and User talk:Lionheart0317.  —SMALLJIM  14:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Smalljim: I'm not surprised at all with your response given your editorial history on Wikipedia. You’re not exactly in the position to critique yourself and provide an objective and unbiased assessment based on civility guidelines. Although, thank you for sharing the procedural actions to take. I don’t necessarily need your guidance; however, I understand why you actually wrote it out. I’m not the first and surely won’t be the last editor you will have a dispute with.
Let’s get something straight. I never said that Douglas Richardson was not a reliable source. He is a reliable source for Wikipedia articles on early colonial American families, New England families, and general articles on American History. Those are the particular fields of Richardson’s expertise. Medieval history is not one of his fields of expertise. This is common knowledge about Richardson’s background. You can simply review his public biography here. For the royal ancestry books he published, the original works were created and researched by others, as exactly stated here: “The books are based on earlier published works by David Faris, Frederick Lewis Weis and others.” Richardson received the rights to the content of those works, where he used it and made changes to the verified lineages based on his own theories. These Richardson theories were inserted into his own versions of Magna Carta Ancestry and Plantagenet Ancestry.
Bottom line, Richardson received much criticism and objections on the SGM blog space for his books and theories, where a vast majority (and almost all) of the original medieval time period content was not researched, developed, or constructed by him. Your time and efforts would be better served pursuing and improving the quality of other articles than constantly challenging the common knowledge facts I just previously wrote to you regarding the American author from Salt Lake City, Utah, Douglas Richardson. I hope this helps. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lionheart0317: Thanks for your comments. Two points:
1. Are you able to live with the three relevant articles as they are now? None of them mentions Richardson directly, and the matter of Philippa's parentage has been reduced to the minimum that I think is appropriate. Yes, I know I'm not the ultimate arbiter on this: I'm looking for appropriate balance and compromise. If you can agree on this point, we can go our separate ways.
2. Regarding your concern about the use of Richardson's works on genealogy (or parts thereof) as references for articles on medieval people, your recourse is to post at WP:RSN. Trying to persuade me cannot help – Richardson's works are already widely cited here: Magna Carta Ancestry (570 articles), Plantagenet Ancesty (192 articles), and for comparison Magna Charta Sureties (37 articles). All totals slightly over-estimated due to false positives. These figures indicate that there is community consensus that his works are reliable enough for us, and if you disagree with that consensus then you will need to persuade the community by using good clear arguments and evidence. There are precedents: discussions about the reliability of various sources for genealogy crop up from time to time – there have been several about Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands and The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (consensus appears to be that they are OK with caveats); and Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages (not acceptable and there's even a template to warn readers). These are websites, of course, but as you point out Richardson's later books are self-published so you may be able to gain some traction.
 —SMALLJIM  12:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Smalljim: Two small points:
1. I never said that the entry stating that Philippa was the sister of Lord Bonville in the 1620 Visitation of the County of Cornwall-Grenville pedigree didn’t exist. Yes, it is a 17th century source; however, its credibility has been in doubt for centuries. Countless experts in medieval history and medieval genealogy have commented as such over the past three centuries, whose claims have been backed up by other contemporary evidence. While some genealogical issues may never be conclusively proven, some can be proven by the proof standard of clear and convincing evidence. This has been the standard that has disproven many assertions in the 1620 Grenville pedigree. One of those errors is the entry concerning Philippa’s relationship to Lord Bonville, which numerous experts in the field of medieval genealogy have attributed to a palaeographical error in the manuscript. New research in the field of medieval genealogy is always being published, so as you know, information in this field is always being updated. With that said, I don't necessarily see any real issues with the articles right now. I'm overwhelmed with the inordinate amount of attention you've given me recently. I'm unworthy of this kind of attention from Wikipedia's most seasoned editor! I do hope one day in the future you'll be willing to part ways.
2. I never tried to persuade you because of your expert opinion. If you cared to read anything I wrote, I stated that Richardson’s Bonville pedigree was in error, not all of the pedigrees he listed in his royal ancestry books. There are of course other pedigrees in Richardson’s volumes that are now considered to be in error, and one can only hope that he will correct those in subsequent publications. As I said previously, Richardson could be viewed as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles on early colonial American families and American History. As Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where “ANYONE” can edit it, it is not necessarily the place for absolute authority or scholarly debate on the exact factual truths in certain disciplines, including medieval genealogy. That is why majority, minority, and fringe views are permissible in articles. I’m sure that’s why Charles Cawley’s works and The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy are used as sources without particular attention to the errors that exist in those two sources. Again, the point here is that any author can publish a new theory on a genealogical matter and be considered a reliable and verifiable source, without regard to the factual truth of what that author is actually asserting, and still end up in a Wikipedia article. If you are of the mindset that Richardson is a top scholar in his field, then please ensure that he is used appropriately in articles pertaining to his exact areas of expertise, which are early colonial New England families and American History. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree. The only two RS that have explored the question say she's not his daughter. I'm starting to think that ought to be given greater weight. Richardson has had plenty of opportunity to change his opinion since it was first published in MCS 5th ed. 1999 (or was it in the 4th ed. 1991?), but he hasn't. The rules of this website say that we have to give his opinion much more weight than yours, whether expressed here or in discussion groups.  —SMALLJIM  14:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree. Your expert opinion says that Richardson is an expert in medieval genealogy and of the Bonville family? Based on what? What are the two alleged RS's that state she's not the daughter and should be interpreted as fact? Your expert OPINION says that those alleged RS's are accurate and should be considered factually true. We didn't know you were a medieval expert yourself, Smalljim, or whoever you are. Again, you are falsely associating my opinion with the opinion of confirmed experts in the field of medieval genealogy. Please stop your misdirection and false representations of my position. It is the expert opinion of true medieval genealogists of not just earlier times (William Pole, 16/17th century), but of current times (Roskell, Clark, and Rawcliffe of HOP, 20th century), who have stated that she was the daughter of Lord Bonville. So again, NO, it is not my opinion, but the statements of true experts in the field. Sorry, but you should seriously back away, as I now consider this a moot point. Thank you for the exhilarating experience, but other editors including myself, should not have to put up with your opinion as if you are the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on Wikipedia. I am no longer responding to your misrepresentations and antics on this topic any longer. I trust you understand what it means when I say that I'm not responding to your antics any longer. WP:STICK applies! -Lionheart0317 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Leave the three articles as they are now and we don't need to discuss this any further.  —SMALLJIM  15:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Where does your false assumption come from that you're the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on Wikipedia, who can order and boss other editors around? Are you the REAL LIFE, Jimmy Donal Wales, who masquerades around under the names of Smalljim and Smallerjim? I don't want to give away your secret identity, sir, but it's a logical question. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll rephrase: If you leave the three articles as they are now, we don't need to discuss this any further.  —SMALLJIM  16:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. Are you the real life Jimmy Donal Wales? --Lionheart0317 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Jimmy, why didn't you ever make any edits for William Bonville, Margaret Grey or the Manor of Bideford pages under your official moniker, Jimbo_Wales? --Lionheart0317 (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, thank you for the prompt answer to my question. What would the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. think about your disingenuous antics masquerading around Wikipedia using sock puppets? Not to mention the optics of your behavior. Wikipedians can read for themselves how you are prone to controversy as you make false statements and then later on try to correct the record. You should resign from your Board memberships ASAP! --Lionheart0317 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Lionheart0317, after your last few weird messages, I suspected that you would return to making a series of surreptitious edits to restore your preferred view. And so it has proved. I've watched for a while and have just reverted you on Margaret Grey [1] and Manor of Bideford [2]. This is disruptive editing, maybe trolling. Please stop.  —SMALLJIM  11:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

-Mr. Wales or should I call you Jimmy, stating fact about two diseased genealogists and referencing William Pole from a reliable source is hardly trolling or surreptitious. Please cease and desist with your ridiculous comments, obsessions with these three Wikipedia pages, and obvious false statements about me. I can prove who I say you are. If you want to go down that road, please have it. You are the one who is using sock puppets and perpetrating disruptive editing. Weird messages? It is more than obvious why you would make such a remark after I called you out. When the truth of the matter is that you have masqueraded around Wikipedia long enough disguising your true identity. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

REAL Update[edit]

Smalljim: First, you neither own Wikipedia nor the content of any Wikipedia article. Your preferred versions of articles are not the final binding content for ANY article. Your repeated attempts to dismiss and manipulate the historical facts about a topic are indeed noteworthy, to include how YOU want to add your version of notes to an article, no matter how much of a fringe view that might be. I certainly do not have to defend a reliable, verifiable, and historically accurate reference to a note for Margaret Grey, when said reference is applicable to the note, unbiased in content, and found in the British Museum in London, just because you personally dislike the editor who provided the reference. Furthermore, the real truth of the matter, is that you have not even provided one reliable source to any of the articles in question since their creation. You have, however, engaged in disruptive editing on more than one occasion with these articles!!! A simple historical editing search will prove just that. Second, it's quite peculiar as to why you would make such a comment to Quknpnfl? "I hope you'll donate a proportion of your fee to the Wikimedia Foundation ;-) —SMALLJIM 18:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)" I think it is more than appropriate given your sneaky behavior, sock puppetry, and blatant dishonesty, that you resign immediately from any board memberships you have with the Wikimedia Foundation!!! Please update us when you have, Jimbo! --Lionheart0317 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for help at Roth Capital Partners[edit]

Hi, Smalljim. I noticed that you and User:GreenC have been involved in the cleanup of Ligand Pharmaceuticals following efforts by Cypresscross to malign the company on behalf of Emmanuel Lemelson. Roth Capital Partners, the firm that has paid me to edit Wikipedia on its behalf, has been the target of a similar smear campaign from Lemelson/Cypresscross (a fact that is further corroborated by this recent Lemelson tweet and this letter to Congress from Lemelson).

I would greatly appreciate it if you could lend a hand at the Roth Capital article. I recently posted an extensive edit request at Talk:Roth Capital Partners#Restoring NPOV (#3), but it was not implemented for lack of a thorough consensus. I've also posted a similar request for assistance at COIN, at the urging of User:Spintendo.

Thanks in advance, Quknpnfl (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I was aware of the events at the Roth article, but had decided against editing there. Let me look into this a bit further. Watch this space - I'll reply here.  —SMALLJIM  16:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Quknpnfl: as you've probably seen, I've edited the article to address the unbalanced POV. I used your edit requests as one of the inputs to the process, but haven't responded to them directly. I hope you'll donate a proportion of your fee to the Wikimedia Foundation ;-)  —SMALLJIM  18:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Smalljim. I really appreciate all the work you've put in to improve the Roth Capital article and return it to a more neutral state! At the risk of abusing your generosity, I'd like to point out two final, small suggestions to consider:
  • The Orange County Business Journal published a profile on Roth Capital in April 2018, and there is a lot there that could potentially contribute to the article. (One point that comes to mind is that following the legal dispute between Byron Roth and Walter Cruttenden, the two subsequently reestablished their friendship and Roth has since invested in companies founded by Cruttenden.) The source is behind a paywall on the OCBJ site, but it can be accessed here on Roth's website.
  • The same OCBJ issue included a review of The China Hustle that criticized the film on several grounds, including for its assertion that Roth executed reverse mergers. Rather, according to the review, Roth "raised capital for the Chinese companies after they'd already gone public in the U.S. through the reverse-merger process. The raises are commonly known as follow-on investments." The source can similarly be accessed here on Roth's website. (The film was also criticized in the Washington Post as being "self-serving" and "a kind of selfish activism" on the part of the short-sellers who are featured in the film.)
If you don't mind, please take a look at these sources and incorporate their contents into the article to the extent you feel is appropriate. Thanks again! Quknpnfl (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
That OCBJ profile seems to be rather too cosy to Roth to be a good independent reliable source. I've trimmed one sentence about The China Hustle, but criticism of that documentary belongs in its own article.  —SMALLJIM  12:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the profile paints a favorable picture of Roth, but that doesn't mean the source is not reliable or independent. Also, not that two wrongs make a right, but the OCBJ piece is no more cosy to Roth than the New York Post source used in the article is cosy to Roth's short-selling opponents. (The author of that piece is demonstrably connected to Lemelson and Dan David of the China Hustle.)
Either way, I respect your judgment in this case and remain thankful for your intervention here. Quknpnfl (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)