User talk:Agendum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

William Wilberforce

Thanks for your nice message, and I certainly agree it would be a great project to get the article up to GA and FA if possible. Judging by your userpage you have the background and resources to do it pretty much single-handed! My access to books etc is more limited, given where I live, but I can easily get access to pretty much any academic journal or newspaper under the sun, also the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, so will do what I can in that direction. BTW I was most interested to see all the Porteous material and connections you have here. I know a Porteous family here in Montreal and will have to figure out where they fit into it all sometime! --Slp1 17:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. No problemo at all about changing the ref name. You are doing a great job with all the rewriting. I will continue my slow citing efforts, though limited by lack of resources! As an observation, I generally find it easier to cite as one writes as finding the refs after can be a pain. It would also be nice to get hold of some of the more recent biographies and see what they have to add (and to give a bit of variety in the references!), but I don't know how feasible that is. I have made some notes from the Hochschild book and will add what I think are some interesting snippets as some point. I also downloaded some scholarly and other articles, which I will wade through soon. Presently real life is very real and very present, which will slow things down but I am committed to this project!--Slp1 02:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I know what busy-ness is too, and that real life needs our main focus. I myself am still in super-busy season for the next fortnight or so, but will try and help out where I can. I have managed to get some academic articles to peruse, but of course need the time to do the perusing! I will get back to the article, though! --Slp1 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am ploughing my way through the book, slowly but surely. There are a few discrepancies that I mean to bring up at some point, but I think getting a peer review would be useful information at this point. I am going to have limited internet access (and time to work on things) for the next little while, but I will do what I can and we would probably benefit from the feedback sooner rather than later in any case. --Slp1 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Check my usertalk for some encouraging words from a frequent Feature Article reviewer! I think there is still a fair bit of work to do before we can in those reviewers, but it is a good start, no? --Slp1 (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I will do my best, but am travelling and have very limited access and time at present. There are lots of things that I would like to clean up in the article, and of course there is finishing the Hague book. But hopefully there will be some constructive criticism that will also help in this process. --Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more I see needs to be done. There are lots of passages that are uncited, some problems with the format of the citations, duplicate and overlinking, etc. In general, and having been through this before on another article, I think it is preferable to get one's ducks in a row as much as possible before going for these 'promotion' type reviews. Hopefully we can work through things that need to be done quickly, though frankly the timing is not that great for me, as noted above.Slp1 (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review of William Wilberforce

Hi there!

I'm reviewing the aforementioned article for GA, and I noticed you had quite a few contributions to both the article and the talk page. I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at some small issues I brought up on the talk page? It'd probably take you under an hour to fix most of the them. Anyways, this is just to let you know what's going on with that article.

Cheers,

Malachirality (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Good to hear from you, Malachirality – I have to confess that I have ignored WW in recent weeks. You are right – the body of the article was largely rewritten by me, with sterling help from Slp1 (especially), Keith and David.

I have a couple of days off this week, so will do as you have suggested and try to bring him up to scratch. Thanks for interest and your helpful suggestions. Cheers – Agendum (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and I am glad to see that you are back in the saddle again! I myself much appreciate working with others on these things, and hope you don't mind too much some of the changes I have made to the text. I like to stick very closely to the sources I have when sourcing things, and I have reorganized things a bit, but I am happy to discuss any of these changes. I am hoping to get things up to scratch this weekend. For me this means....

• fully sourcing the text, and deleting what can't be.
• adding a bit more about the Clapham sect, living arrangements etc
• adding about the Queen Caroline affair
• amplifying information about the Sierra Leone project
• tightening up the section about abolition which I agree with Malachirality is a bit too much about the topic and not enough about WW
• adding something about how WW has adopted by Christians/evangelicals as a Christian hero
• and the other suggestions Malachirality has....

mmm, seems a lot! Hope it can be done though, and of course you likely have your own ideas!Slp1 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Your plan sounds great, and I agree that the print out thing often helps a lot. I guess there is something about paper. I agree we are very close to being ready, though I do have one or two other things in mind as above, including a journal article I found that may be useful for a different perspective and a new reference! I hope to get to these things in the next couple of days. --Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I have learnt to spell Tomkins correctly now. Thanks very much!

Thanks again for the message. I have done another run through and hope to have caught some of the stray extra commas, but this is obviously not really my gift, so perhaps you can have a look too. Can you check out the thing about meeting in the parliamentary gallery... Hague and others say it was before they became MPs, but maybe Pollock says differently? I still have designs to increase the Sierra Leone section and to add to the Legacy section, and hopefully that can happen before the end of tomorrow, but wouldn't be a sine qua non anyway, I wouldn't think. Must go to bed.03:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Slp1 (talk)

It's looking good, I think. I am giving myself an hour before bed to try a few more tweaks and clarifications and will do what I can. I think those sentences are fine... as you say important to the story.Slp1 (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done for even trying! I figure some boffin will make some sort of bot or patch or whatever to fix the problem! I can't imagine it will be held against the article given the circumstances. Anyway the picture is so lovely and large that it is good for the visually impaired! Slp1 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your question, Bruce. Per WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." I think we need to cover some of the less positive material in the lead to give a whole flavour of the man. I think there are likely other tweaks to be made to make sure it follows WP:LEAD, but I'm incline to wait a bit for that! --Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits

As a new user I am puzzled. If this page is about the Porteous family of Scotland why is it not titled as such? Also, at what point does a Porteous of Scotland become an Englishman like Beilby Porteus for instance? Does this not go against your argument for reverting the changes .

William the Good

Hi Bruce,

It was a long wait, but with patience we are there, thanks to all your hard work. Congratulations and have a glass of champers!!! --Slp1 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

reportedly

re the singing edit. Can you check the discussion on this at the peer review page: [1]. The reviewer didn't like the "reportedly" part, and wanted more information which is why I changed it. --Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert but I think it must be a fake, or possibly a still from a film or something. It does look like a photo and in fact I am sure it is. It isn't in any book I've seen and it is awfully early for a photograph, no? I was thinking (without looking properly) that it was just a black and white photo of the painting, but you are right, it isn't. The man doesn't even look the same. Too many weird things. Take it out, say I. --Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Autograph

Thank you for your comment in my 'autograph' book. I'm just a cheerleader for William Wilberforce! I hope you two take it to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates soon...although beware that the process is akin to a pit of vipers. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wiberforce monument.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Agendum!
We thank you for uploading Image:Wiberforce monument.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Wiberforce monument.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Wiberforce monument.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Wiberforce monument.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 00:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wiberforce monument.jpg

Hi- you were right that this was under a CC license, but it was under a non-free one- Attribution No-Derivs 2.0. This is non free as it does not allow derivative works. Wikipedia can accept only CC licenses that count as 'free', and a list of those can be found here. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can be of any help. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

William

Thanks for your encouragement, though I think the credit should go to Qp10qp's review, which I am still struggling to respond to, though slowly making ground. Unfortunately, there still seem to be important but challenging aspects to work on, but I am hoping to get to these as soon as I can.--Slp1 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the feedback. I am almost at the bottom of my piles of papers and notes, so the end is in sight for me. I think it would be great if you could look into the images, as you suggest. Maybe a cropping of the column would make it stand up straighter? Also contacting Elcobbola (talk · contribs · count): it would be good to get any surprises re images sorted out before getting to FAC. --Slp1 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Question..

I totally realize that you are wanting this to be a fair and accurate biography, but I am just wondering about some of your recent edits. Forgive me for asking: I'm thinking of this edit in particular [3] which is well sourced using "unchristian" and this one [4]: Pinfold doesn't talk about a divinely inspired crusade, but perhaps Hague does: I can't check because I had to take the book back to the library? Does Hague mention this there? --Slp1 (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually think moving up the quote is fine, and placing more emphasis on this is okay. Hague calls something similar to this but does not use the same language which is why I phrased it as I did. My problem is that we can't include our own opinions into the article, we need to make sure that any edits we make accurate reflect the sources cited. For example, immoral is not the same as unchristian and unchristian is the specific word Pinfold used. I would also very much suggest we avoid adding any more Pollock. He may have been the standard biography, but I have now read 2 specific comments which links his book in the out of date elitist view, including one that was written in the 1980s!! e.g. "The sons were primarily responsible for the traditional view, the simplistic myth of Wilberforce and his Evangelical allies as allies in a holy crusade against the greatest Evil of the times....It was this elitist view, given scholarly acceptability by Sir Reginald Coupland, who in addition to amplifying the background, presented Wilberforce as a kindly, lovable and immensely popular personality. This is basically the position taken by two more recent biographers, Robin Furneaux and the Rev. John Pollock -both of whom are sympathetic to Wilberforce's religious motivations." from Out of Slavery: Abolition and After (Studies in Commonwealth Politics and History). I don't think we want to use too much in the way of interpretation from a 30 year old book that has been criticized for its old fashioned approach.--Slp1 (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy reading! I totally agree about the irritation of googlebooks and amazon, but they are very useful and wet the appetite, which of course is the idea! There are lots of other similar ones out there, if you do googlebooks searches, all of which help to broaden the mind. I don't by any means think that Brown is the be all and end all of WW interpretation, and actually having read around the subject a bit, in some ways the only really new thing he brought for the purposes of this article was the idea that people can have multiple motivations and the Evangelicals were in part motivated by the fact that it was a very popular campaign. New, but not exactly outrageous, given what we all know about how much more fun it is to be involved in a popular cause than an unpopular one! I guess the way I see it is that none of these interpretations are so radically different from each other that we need to attribute them specifically. They all say that he was motivated by his Christianity and the way that he felt Christianity should be lived out. (All except Williams, I guess, who also sufficiently outmoded that we don't need to give his views space in the biography part) Personally, I think that is clear in the text. Of course, how he thought Christianity should be lived out also led him to support/oppose/ignore some other things people might and did/do question: but as Hague and Hochschild point out, he was just being consistent with his worldview. Not such a strange or bad thing either, really.Slp1 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW did you see ElCobbola's edit on my talkpage about the photos on Flickr etc? Perhaps you could answer since you have a better grasp of what you did and what happened etc. Slp1 (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what do you think, should we take the plunge soon? It'll never be perfect and getting more feedback will be helpful in any case! Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your timeline is fine by me. I don't think it is a tragedy if we don't get photo in before the starting the nom, and the text is going to end up changing during the process as we get feedback, so up to a point as long as we clear up obvious issues it is probably best if we don't feel it is perfect before we start... otherwise we won't want to make the changes suggested!! --Slp1 (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The deed is done![5] I hope you approve of the nom! We will need to keep an eye on things there and try to respond to comments as they appear! Hopefully it won't be toooooo painful! Slp1 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really think I have that much more experience than you, but I have gone through the FA process once, and it is considerably more detailed and rigourous than GA, and can be quite a difficult experience. You might want to read up here, [6] [7] as well as this only semi-serious one [8]. And of course you can look at what comments other articles are getting here WP:FAC. In fact I think it is often appreciated if we try to review another article or two on that list when we nominate one. The instructions about what to do and how are there, which is good.

I don't think we need to edit the article anymore (unless you want to and see something that needs doing). I think we may get plenty of suggestions to keep us busy from other people. About your edit of today: I still think "extreme" is a bit "extreme" for those pages referenced, but I was willing to let it go, as on rereading the pages yet again there are some bits of Brown on that page that go in the direction you want it to, though not quite as boldly, perhaps. But since you have now said that you are not sure that it is appropriately referenced either, then I believe we must remove it as it isn't verifiable, which is obviously a criteria for FA. Or perhaps I will just edit it (making it a bit softer, probably) so that it is verifiable. When you find your reference you can always add it later.--Slp1 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Here it is in case you are interested [9] By the way, don't forget that we should use only citation templates, not cite book ones. I fixed the one you added for Clarkson, but it is probably quicker to use the citation one from the start!!Slp1 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with them. MF doesn't like the present participle, and you and I do, I guess. It's all a matter of taste, and who is to say who is right or wrong (Crystal again). It's what I like about WP in some ways: we are forced to accept that it's not our article and that other people get to edit it to their taste: and mostly they are making it better, I find. At this point, I will just be happy for the FAC to be finished, and am prepared to jump through most hoops (though not all!!) to have it over. Perhaps you feel the same. Hopefully it will be soon! Slp1 (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whippeeee!!!!!

You are in bed no doubt, and when you wake up it will be a bit early for the champagne I am offering you,

but save it till later since you deserve it without a doubt!! We done it!!! Hurray and well done! Congratulations! Slp1 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FA!

Congrats on the William Wilberforce FA! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

No, I still haven't heard from the Flickr folks. You can indeed upload the images yourself, you'll just need to either A) have the authors change the licenses on the respective Flickr pages or B) email the authors the consent form at WP:CONSENT and forward their response to OTRS. (Option B is probably easier on them; Wikipedia:COPYREQ#When_permission_is_confirmed or I can also guide you once they've responded). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Skipp Porteous

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Skipp Porteous, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. HighKing (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi! I just return from vacation when I found your massage. I appriciate this veryu much! and hope to work together!

Critisizer (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page

I am slightly horrified to see that old William will be making the main page on Wed. It couldn't come at a worse time for me, but hopefully you can be being vigilant. Prepare for the onslaught. It is a great honour, and can lead to improvements in the article, but oh my goodness, the vandalism is awful. --Slp1 (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. See this for a humorous view of it. [10]. Actually the vandalism isn't really the problem, as other editors will delete that very quickly. Answering the questions on the talkpage, and reacting for or against more sensible changes in the text is the time-consuming part. But anyway, the pressure leaves after a few days, and there is always time to recoup and consider things later.--Slp1 (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could have been much worse... must mean we wrote a good article!! Keep watching though, as there is still a link to the article on the main page. When I have a moment I will post something to the talkpage, as I think there are a couple of things worth looking at and discussing: particularly how to phrase the Christianity in India thing (which was a good point), as well as whether we want to do something more general with the towns named after him. The Australian one is just the tip of the iceberg, and if we start going that way, it will be endless.--Slp1 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce & Hendon Park

Hi Agendum, I noticed you are one of the principal contributors to William Wilberforce. I'd be grateful for your advice on Hendon Park. This article has contained a large amount of nonsense. It refers to Hendon Park as a former home of Wilberforce - which may be true or may be nonsense. The Wilberforce article refers to "Highwood Hill, a more modest property in the countryside of Mill Hill". Could this be the same as Hendon Park? with thanks for any light you may shed Mick gold (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits to your user page

I presume this edit to your user page is vand. I have corrected it. Do not forget to watch your one user page. Snowman (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wm. Irvine

I was wondering if you might like to have a look at the article on this Mr. Irvine, evangelist from Kilsyth, Scotland (died 1947). I don't know whether you would have any additional information to add, or even any interest, but it would be nice to have some perspective from the British Isles. • Astynax ^talk 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly six years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Agendum! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 34 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Skipp Porteous - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with Frederick Buechner peer review?

Hello, Agendum. I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at the Frederick Buechner biography? I've done a lot of work on it and would love a peer review if you have time, and it seems like you'd be a great match. Thanks! (Godric1234 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bible-Pattern Church Fellowship

The article Bible-Pattern Church Fellowship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations - notability not established, no references since tagged on May 2008.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     23:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject East Anglia

Would you be interested in WikiProject East Anglia?

If yes, please support us here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk talk 07:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Congrats on your semi retirement! I hope you find lots of fun things to do with your time besides spending time here. I still have a yen to improve some of the articles around Wilberforce, including Thomas Clarkson, and Olaudah Equiano but I always seem to have more things I want to do than time to do it! Roll on retirement, I guess!! --Slp1 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Gladstone Porteous

Thank you for your message. Yes, this was one of the more interesting articles for me to start, particularly disentangling the misname in Jacqueline Lo's Writing home (2000). If you know of a census/genealogy website which would provide a better date of birth/death please add it. Thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, how's things; do you have any biodata for Arthur G. Nicholls. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)