User talk:LindsayH/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Richard Fitz Gilbert

I am replying to your question, as to his date of birth. How certin can one be about someone that lived over 500 years ago, the changes made were done according to the information contained in The Royal Ancestry Bible Royal ancestors of 300 Ameircan Families By Michel L. Call ISBN 1-933194-22-7 (chart 1696). Thanks Dthem 2000 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Moved from Userpage Lindsay 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

username

Funny coincidence! But yes, it's mostly a local thing. You wouldn't have heard of it unless you'd lived in the area. VanTucky ^Talk 19:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perpetual virginity of Mary

Yes, good edits imo - the line that "It is also considered unfit for Christ to have had siblings." only arrived a few days ago, and I only tagged it for 'citation needed' as I thought it an interesting comment that might be sourced somewhere - but nothign has turned up. Springnuts (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

"Removing warnings from your talk page is often considered vandalism." I didn't know that. Thanks. 70.101.182.149 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Testing maybe..:)

He is an animal..:) Igor Berger (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

Hello LindsayH.
I noticed that you revert vandalism. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the world!
However, I have noticed that you do not always leave warnings on the users talk pages. You should always leave an appropriate warning after reverting vandalism. (The full list of talk page warnings may be found here, along with some suggestions and guidelines for using them.)
Be sure to leave the correct level of warning, and if the user has been warned four times in the last month, (Check the users talk page history. Some users remove warnings from their talk pages.) report by going to this page and following the instructions.
Thank you again, and may vandalism fail. Ultra! 19:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Ultra! 19:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct. I do not leave a warning when it is not clearly vandalism, or when it may be a questionable edit by an anon IP. Some editors feel there is no point warning IPs; i don't agree, but i do see the point, and therefore believe that letting a warning go is preferable to putting one every time and either driving off someone trying to help, or wasting a warning where one isn't needed. Thanks for your help & suggestions. Cheers, Lindsay 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

please look into

please look into your reporting before doing so, if you looked at the history i was the one that created the page and then deleted it, and i am now aware on how to actually move the page the correct way (currently in process) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.166.139 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blanking a page with no Edit Summary is liable to be called vandalism with no second look. You ought to have made a speedy delete request. Cheers, Lindsay 14:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My change

I just dont like the Rangers so i put that in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.187.3 (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed Ayoob

I have removed the reference to Dalit Advisai descent which is false. In fact, it is vandalism bordering on libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.144.7 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

HI Linday I noticed you reverted me. Badgering aside, the idea of the project proposed is not to create a gazillion sub stubs. Part of it is to set up a coordinated project revolving around FritzBot to clean up all existing settlement articles by country before new content is generated. So the title of the oppostion isn't an accurate statement. Really it should be just for those who oppose the whole idea not just genrating new content as that was what the old proposal was about ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmm I see what you are saying. but there is more to the idea than what it implies thats all. As I said, it should just be oppostion to bots generating or editing existing articles in general not just creating them en masse. Anyway, on a different note I created the article on Ar Rifa` earlier which the bot would have started from the missing list. There are many thousands of places with a population around 100,000 missing from wikipedia thats all. But I respect your view and have tried not to "badger" people this time. I only seemed to hassle people before because they had misinterpreted the proposal. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Duncan Campbell Scott

I understand your revert, but the information I provided is definitely worth including. This has recently become a big news story since the Prime Minister apologized for the treatment of Native American children. I would also be confident in saying that Scott is notorious for his actions in this, but I'll lighten up on such descriptions if you really feel it's necessary. Cale (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, it is worth including, though the fact it is currently a news story currently is not of great importance to the article of a man who died years ago. The inclusion was not my objection; the language was. Reinsert it; or i will; i would have had a go at rewriting it at the time i took it out, but i had to go out. Anyway, if you don't, i'll try. Cheers, Lindsay 08:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Henry Beauclerc and Robert the Bruce

Hello,

I must confess I edited it in a hurry. But there is no issue in stating that Robert the Bruce was a descendant of Henry Beauclerc.

Henry Beauclerc and Robert the Bruce

haha yes you are completely correct..if we go back far enough we are all related. i just was not sure if people knew that robert the bruce was also a descendant of william the conqueror just like his arch enemy edward I...I thought it would be an interesting trivia fact on Robert the Bruce as wikipedia sometimes has trivia information on the various biographies of notable people.

Henry Beauclerc and Robert the Bruce

Robert the Bruce was also a descendant of Alfred the great, charlemagne, brian boruma, alfred the great,and a host of other royals. not to mention he is a descendants of the "first" king of scotland kenneth macalpin.

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) 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Karl Barth

I thought you would be amused to know that Karl Barth, like most German intellectuals used latin script when writing by hand rather than the gothic handwriting favoured by the Nazis. He thus avoided all those unusual characters favoured by Kelisi. How paradoxical that Kelisi in his enthusiasm to attack Nazis has become besotted by the very characters that were their hallmark! Any native German speaker happily uses an "e" in place of an umlaut, becuase they recognise the umlaut as a printers device. I would be interested to know whether Martin Luther's printed Bible used umlauts. Although you are probably aware that ye was used by early English printers, who used "y" rather than "th". Heaven forbid that Kelisi should discover this and start replacing every "th" in Wikipedia with "y" Fred20x (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. How amusing. I decline, however, to be drawn into childishness. My sole concern is that the process be followed, that consensus be reached, and that individuals, being bold and then reverted, seek that consensus (as required by policy). I have no inclination one way or the other about umlauts. Just, please, seek to work together. A good place to start, as you have both quoted policy at each other, is to read this essay. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 00:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As a Froebelian, I am not sure whether I am comfortable with your use of the word childishness. As I recall another wise man is reported to have said "unless you become like little children . . ." - but I doubt he was referring to the youthful bravado of some Wikipedia editors. On one level introducing foreign characters into the English version of Wikipedia is just plain silly. But young people do like to show off their knowledge - how clever they are to know the code for all these usual characters. When does this youthful exuberance cross over into vandalism? Serious scholars will see it as just another reason why Wikipedia is unreliable. Has Wikipedia fallen victim to school yard bullies? Fred20x (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Rich

List of the Archbishops of Canterbury in the Cathedral

Hmm... I rather thought you might. Trouble is that I fail to see how they can possibly claim a figure from the Catholic church so many centuries before Anglicanism was even invented? Unless they are claiming some form of patriarchal descent, in which case that shows a shocking lack of understanding on their parts as to how Anglicanism was born. Oh well... I've got no desire to argue the point! Aula^TPN 21:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment here as, well. See the article's talk page. The banner was not intended to "claim" the saint as an Anglican. Rather, as an Archbishop of Canterbury, he merits some degree of attention from the project. Note the list in St Edmund's own Canterbury Cathedral which place him in the list from St. Augustine to Rowan Williams; second from the bottom on the first tablet:

He's also recognized as a saint in the Anglican Liturgical Calendar.

--Secisek (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My Edit regarding the House of Plantagement

Hello there,Hope your'e doing well.I think you missunderstood one of my edits when added Henry VI entry as Henry VI of England and France.By this entry I mean bieng also King of France not as you understood it as meaning Henry VI of France.I should have adjusted the entry a bit.I meant it as bieng "Henri II of France" not Henry VI of France and England.Apologies.Anyway if you are intrested in releated subjects concerning Henry VI(Henri II of France) and the Dual-Monarchy you should check out my article.Here is the link.The Dual-Monarchy of England and France.Goodbye. --HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand; you misunderstand what you did, and have done again. What you have written, whether you meant it or not, is that he was Henry VI of England and Henry VI of France. I am completely disregarding the value of adding France in at all, simply reverting you because your edit is wrong in result, whatever the intent. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 06:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

OK.No problem.Enjoy editing and please forgive me.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Day at the Races

Perhaps this was just an oversight, but when you moved Day at the Races to A Day at the Races (video), and then redirected the old title to the disambiguation page, you didn't change any of the other articles that linked to the old title; in particular, you didn't change the disambiguation page A Day at the Races, so that page now contains a link to a redirect to itself (which I'll fix momentarily). In future, when you change the article to which a title redirects, you should also check whether you are affecting any incoming links from other pages. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i'm a muppet. (Duh!) Thanks for cleaning up after me. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting jeff popa?

Why do you keep deleting jeff popa? He has been a Canton resident since 1991 and contributed to this community since then. Dont you think that merits notoriety over someone who moved into Canton that plays a professional sport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffpopa (talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I delete him because your first edit summary ("Baked the best hommade apple pie with chocolate sauce in Plymouth-Canton Schools history") was clearly a joke, your second edit had no summary, and your third claimed notability, but gave no evidence. I'm quite willing for someone to be added, but only under the terms WP has arranged. On top of that, you seem likely, from your Username, to be this person, and thus are perhaps not the best person to judge notability. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good answers. You passed the first test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffpopa (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

EARLS OF CLARE

Dear Lindsey: I would respectfully disagree with you that the early Earls of Clare were not actual Earls, but rather they, in your words, "called themselves the Earls of Clare".

I believe the later Earls have documents which the early Earls did not have or that, more likely, its "medieval equivalent did not survive".

But "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Carl Sagan The early Earls of Clare are mentioned in medieval chronicles in more than one place. These chroniclers were some of the most educated men in their day.

The Chronicler Gerald of Wales was a clerk to Henry II. I do not think he would make such a mistake and it not be corrected. Yet, to date, I have not found such a correction by this Chronicler or any other.

If one had to weigh the statements, I think there is more reason to believe that the early Earls were, in fact, appointed by at least one King.

Also, I re-checked and have quoted the texts correctly as they were spelled. It would be improper for me to quote a text and not quote it exactly as it appeared on the page. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 69.183.194.228 (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just created a discussion page, (I hope I have done so correctly).--Mugginsx (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am learning to use the web and Wikipedia as I go along. I apologize for not signing my statements. At this time, I do not know how to accomplish that. I am still somewhat of an internet illiterate.

With respect, mugginsx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.194.228 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Lindsey: I fear I did not make myself clear in my response to you for which I again apologize. I believe that the "Early Clares" were actually Earls of Clares in addition to the other titles they possessed and for which they were certainly better known. I believe that the Dictionary of National Biography specifically cites that they were not just "styled earls of clare". I do, however, agree that to date, there is no specific proof, but only indirectly indicated. I thank you for your response and I will pursue my research in that direction and we will respectfully agree to disagree on that point. I hope too, that I am getting better in the editing department and thank you also for your insight in that direction. Mugginsx (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re Your latest comment on Earl of Clare

Since I have added much text to this page, it may confuse the "misinformation" added concerning "the later Earls of Clare". Since I am new to Wikipedia, I did not feel that I could edit their contributions, therefore I concentrated on the "early Earls of Clare". If you feel you can edit the "later Earls of Clare" to make the article more coherent and complete, by all means do so with my blessing. Mugginsx (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As to Marmaduke Percy's comment, (and your agreement to it) that "No matter what the salient points are about the family, they're certainly not made here. I will try to get to this at some point, but this is an important early Anglo-Norman family and this piece doesn't begin to explicate them" I would suggest that you make these points on the INDIVIDUAL sites of each "Earl of Clare". The Earl of Clare page is meant to give an overall view, in particular, of the older Earls. It would take volumes to explain each earl and their individual accomplishments and so I am sure that you can see the logic in adding to the their individual sites. Mugginsx (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Mugginsx (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

One final comment: Since you are not listed as an Administrator, it is my understanding that you cannot just "prune" or "edit" without good reason. I am sure that you would live up to the standards of Wikipedia as you would have others.Mugginsx (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Lindsey: If by "formatting" you mean to correct the spellings or punctuation, I have already explained that within the direct quotations I have spelled and/or punctuated exactly the way it is shown in said direct quote. I cannot change that because it would go against proper research and copying procedure. If you find any other spelling or punctuation in the general body of the work which is incorrect, then I would, of course, welcome your corrections. The work and research is itself completely accurate and has survived many academics throughout hundreds of years. I would not accept any deletion or change in that regard. I will also accept your advice and continue to study the Wikipedia sites on procedure, etc., that you have recommended as I have already been doing as time permits. 69.183.179.172 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Earls of Clare

Hello. I've followed your postings to the talk page, and had seen everything except for what you'd just added. I agree with everything you've said. You've also been very gracious to newcomers, who don't necessarily understand how the process works. For that I commend you. But I think there is some scalpel work required, removing anything that treads on copyright elsewhere (as you say), as well as putting in chronological order, and straightening out the matter of who was 'de Clare' and who were the Earls of Clare. You seem to have a good grasp of it all. Why don't you take a crack at it, and I'll have a look afterwards. Thanks for the message and take care. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Was just taking a look at this entry, and what apparently has happened is confusion over the fact that the early Clares, Anglo-Normans who took their name from an English manorial holding, were indeed earls – but not the Earls of Clare. They were at various times the earls of Gloucester and the earls of Pembroke and the earls of Hereford. The main stem of the family was among the most powerful of the Anglo-Norman lords. But someone has confused the last name with an earldom, as you suggested. This isn't a valid source, in my book, but it does lay out the history a bit. [1] From the looks of it, it's simply a matter of explaining that a surname like Clare, however prominent in English history, doesn't simply translate into an earldom of the same name. Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As wikipedia's own entry on Richard Fitz Gilbert makes clear, the family name was FitzGilbert; they were the manorial lords of Clare (from whence they took their surname, a common practice); and they were the earls of places other than Clare.MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Lindsay - as to Your latest message First of all, I apologize for misspelling your name. There is no excuse for it, I was a little miffed at the time, not so much at you but the other person who identifies him or herself as Marmaduke Percy. I became careless in my state of agitation, so truly, I am sorry about the misspelling of your name. As to the editing and shortening of the direct quotes, that is where I stated It would be improper research copying. Your are quite correct that the initial paragraph is still in copyright and I will remove it as soon as I can find and cite the same information in Uncopyrighted form. I have found most of it but it will take a little time to put it together and then to insert it.

Secondly: I know you still do not believe in these early Earls of Clare but, please research the chroniclers and try to evaluate THEIR competency (not mine or yours) as to who was and was not a proper Earl of Clare. Take, for instance the citations in The Chronicle of the Princes. Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Llywelyn the Great, Llywelyn Fawr, all the same person, was versed in several languages, was himself literate and composed many messages to the King of England and others himself and in his own hand. Further of course, you might reason that because he was given the illegitimate daughter of King John, at least he (King John) thought him intelligent as well as powerful. As cruel as he was to others, he was known to dote even on his illegimate daughter Joan. One cannot just dismiss these chronicles by saying, "Well, I do not think they were really Earls of Clare". This belief would tend to defy logic and a researcher must not only be an educated person but also a logical person in evaluating the words and motives of these chroniclers. I believe you to be both educated and logical, but if you require more proof than the contemporaneous chroniclers, I think you aim too high. I will try to obtain more proof but in the end, as you yourself has stated to someone else, (I will paraphrase you,) When you are dealing with something that occurred several hundred years ago, who really knows? I think the continued evidence and continuity must at some point allow one to make a leap of faith, otherwise how is ANY history really considered history? Also, a glimpse of the individual Clare websites show they are wrought with error.

Finally: As to to "highlighting" "linking" and styling changes - "knock your sock off" , Highlight! Link! and by all means"Style! make it prettier by all means! I trust you to do far better than I in that regard Mugginsx (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

I read your most impressive information site and just wanted to say that I have been a Baptist for thirty years, since I started watching Dr. Charles Stanley. He has made my life very happy through his teachings and I have regarded him as my most valued pastor/teacher. Mugginsx (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, "most impressive"; well, think how much more impressive it would be if i could actually speak those languages properly! That would make me happy! Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Clare

Sorry to hear about your vacation plans. Yes, I've never been involved in an edit war either. Normally folks are pretty amenable. I've rarely seen a situation like this one. The page was protected in the original state after you left. Then Muggles showed up and began reinserting his nonsensical claims again. Now he claims I don't understand research. I probably add more footnotes per square inch than 99 percent of editors, as that's my background. I find this individual quite maddening, and impossible to work with. You can read over what he's said. Most of it is nonsense. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What's even more odd is that this is an edit war about an entry to which I'd never contributed. But it is, as I've said, an important (if brief) entry, and if it is wrongheaded, that will speak to the value (or lack thereof) of wikipedia. That's why I've been insistent on this new user producing proof, which he concedes does not exist. The family he continues to insert don't really belong in the entry in the first place. They belong, as you pointed out in the beginning, on the Clare page. Oh boy, I better not say that, or he'll go ruin that entry next. Sheesh. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is nuts. It is an entry i've contributed to, obviously, and one i care about. Funnily enough, i'm probably fairly close to the top of the tree in knowledge of the family, with specific reference to its genealogy, as a result of research for an MA. Not that i would mention that on the page, as i don't like the idea it may be taken as throwing weight around. I have started an RfC ~ on the article, though i reckon eventually Mugginsx will find himself with one on himself, if his behaviour continues; i hope that we can get some good outside input from people who know & care. Also, ironically, i was considering, at the beginning of this, just cut-and-pasting (and editing for style & format) some of the Mugginsmaterial to de Clare; i think some of it would be ideal there. But i won't go into that can of worms right now! Cheers, Lindsay^Hi13:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I figured you must have some background in the subject, and indeed you do. I've obviously come across them many times in my reading, but wouldn't call myself an 'expert.' However, I have contributed extensively to wikipedia English history entries, especially on the Anglo-Normans, and I could see that this was just plain wrong-headed. That was smart getting an RfC. Hopefully that will solve the problem. I'm exasperated with this individual, especially after his comments on my talk page. Thanks for hanging in there, and sorry about the vacation. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Conversation

Hello Mugginsx. I trust you'll accept me writing on this page; i'd e-mail you if you had it activated, then this wouldn't have to be in public view.

I'm writing to say that i'm glad the Clare affair has been sorted out; it seems that one or two people were able to offer some insight, and you were willing to accept another view ~ coöperation and consensus, that's the Wikipedia way, as you know. The article looks quite good now; i'm pleased to see it as i'm back from my holiday.

I do hope that you'll understand, however, when i say i was hurt or offended by some of the things you wrote about me during the course of the dispute, and i do feel that you owe me (and Marmaduke) an apology. Each of these numbers following, in case you don't know this, can be clicked on like a wlink in the articles, to see what i'm referring to: Let me give you a few examples of what i find hurtful, untrue, or offensive... [2] (“vandals or trolls”),[3] (“Please do not comment to me about good faith. You do not know the meaning of the word”), [4] (“casual dismissal”). I have to tell you that from the first interaction i had with you i acted in nothing but good faith, and assumed that you were doing the same; my goal was (and is) to improve Wikipedia, i assumed yours was the same; i had no ulterior motive or agenda, and assumed you didn't either. Now, i am willing to retain these assumptions, if you can assure me you have good faith and are prepared to work with others, even those with whom you disagree. I'll even offer to help you find your way around the (admittedly sometimes) hard to work out WP etiquette and editing techniques, if you would like help. So, after a rather rough start, can we be friends ~ or at least coöperating editors? Cheers, LindsayHi 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put your comment and this response on your page. I noticed in your history that you, in fact, do have my e-mail address, which I avae to the Mediation Committee, perhaps that is where you obtained it. You stated to Marmaduke that you have "alot invested in the Earl of Clare article, however, in fact, as the early history of that article shows you added nothing to the original or revised section". This is just one of the reasons that I believed and believe that you did not, in this case, edit with good faith. You made fun of my statement that I was consulting with academics on this subject and that they, in fact, agreed with me, when, that was the truth. You edited, cut, and pasted comments that I made, in different areas and in response to different comments, all in the same paragraph which could mislead anyone else. You made fun of my well-meaning comment on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Dr. Stanley. I do not know what "languages" you were referring to, whether it be ancient Greek and Hebrew or the jibberish of the "charismatic" movement to which I do not subscribed, but since you put "giggles" in your comment, I assume you meant the latter. I have acted in good faith and tried to edit my material, it was rejected except for the historian Gerald. I said I would defer to the opinion of an administrative decision, and I did so. I wish you no "ill-will" but I do not intend to answer your comments because I can not believe they are sincere as your own past words indicate. Your own comments prove your motivation. I owe you no apology. Mugginsx (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, truly. I am sorry that i have somehow offended you so badly; i am sorry that i have written things that are not clear and have been misinterpreted; most of all i am sorry that you cannot believe i edit in good faith and intend you no offence or harm. You need to understand, however, that we are likely to run into each other again, as we obviously have some of the same interests ~ several pages you have edited have turned up on my watchlist. That being so, i hope that you can follow Wikipedia policy and assume good faith as, again i assure you, that is how i edit.

I don't really plan on answering the huge laundry list of accusations you have made over the weeks, but i think i should point out that you are and have been misinterpreting. A simple example: You stated "I read your most impressive information site", and then got upset at my response; i didn't, as you can see above, make fun of you nor put "giggles" in my comment, which was a serious response ~ i would love to be able to speak the languages mentioned on the "most impressive information site", that is, Welsh, French, Italian, Latin, and indeed the Greek and Hebrew i studied at SBTS. There is nothing offensive there.

Again, i am at a complete loss to understand what you mean about your e-mail address; as far as i know, the only way to e-mail someone on Wikipedia is from their user page; since you don't have a user page currently (that's different from the talk page), i know of no way to do so.

As for cutting-and-pasting, that is a standard way here at Wikipedia to bring different points which seem related together in a conversation; certainly there was no attempt to obfuscate the issue, rather to clarify.

All this is by the way, though, so long as when we meet again you don't hold a grudge, as you seem to say you don't above; as to the misinterpretations, offences, and whether or not an apology is due, we'll have to agree to differ. Cheers,Lindsay^Hi 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been prideful and stubborn for which I ask your forgiveness. How can I profess to be a good Baptist and not do so. I did and do believe in the early earls of clare, I have been assured by academics who have spent their entire career studying medieval history that they agree with me. However, that matter has been laid to rest and there in no point in continuing to harbor ill feelings. It is true that some of our interests are similar and, no doubt, we will visit and perhaps edit the same articles. I hope that we can do so with courtesy and respect. I mean that sincerely. Let us end this feud which must ultimately diminish us both. Perhaps our similar interests in these articles can lead to a more complete understanding of these times and events that happened so very long ago. If scholars are still disagreeing over this and other items in medieval history we can, I hope, show an alternate point of view without being afraid of censure, providing it is done with care and respect and in a true sense of scholarship. If we do so then surely the readers of Wiki, some of whom are scholars, will look appreciatively at our work and be well pleased. We may, as well, relate to others less informed of a wonderful, terrible, and mysterious time in history that has surely touched us all in some way,Mugginsx (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard, Steward of the Forest

Lindsay: Do you know anything about Richard de Clare, Steward of the Forest? I cannot find anything anywhere about him. I thought that, as you indicated in your user page that you live in Wales, you could perhaps find some information on him not easily obtained in the US.. Mugginsx (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any dates? Parentage? There were so many Richards in that family, that just the name isn't much help ~ not to mention people of that name not actually related to 'our' Clares! There were a couple of cadet Richard de Clares in the late thirteenth/early fourteenth centuries, fl.1290-1330; could your man be one of them? Cheers,Lindsay^Hi 03:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and yes, to both your statement and you question, they are legion, are they not? So, too the Gilberts, now Rogers aren't so bad. It could make a person shake their head. I should have been more specific. I meant the Wiki stub article called Richard de Clare, Steward of Forest of Essex (1278–1318), killed at the Battle of Dysert O'Dea in Ireland. Mugginsx (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you have found some information on Richard, Steward of the Forest. Wonderful. I mean that. Hey, have you looked at the Internet Archives Website under The historical works of Giraldus Cambrensis - Giraldus, Cambrensis, 1146?-1223? It has fascinating details on the death of Richard fitz Gilbert. Too long and detailed for the article, but fascinating to read nonetheless. Brian fitz Count is an interesting fellow as well. No angel there. Mugginsx (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thomas de Clare

I had been intending to create an article on Thomas for ages, but kept getting side-tracked; therefore it came as a pleasant surprise to find that you had created it this morning. He was quite a character. It's never been properly explained why he ordered the execution of his former ally Brian Ruad.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And i intended to add to it, rather than leave it at the two or three sentences i first wrote, but got called away, so it was a pleasant surprise to log on and see what superbe expansion you wrought. Cheers,Lindsay^Hi 04:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Between the two of you, a very nice piece indeed. Congrats. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I must give most of the credit to Lindsay. If she hadn't created it, I would probably have never got around to doing it myself, whereas she gave me the needed impetus to work on it. It's a pity we don't know why Thomas hanged his former ally. Perhaps anger that Brian Ruad indirectly caused the deaths of so many of his own men (My opinion only).--Jeanne Boleyn(talk) 06:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Thank you for your help on the list! When disambiguating, however, please avoid (porn actor); (actor) is usually sufficient unless there already is an actor article in which case (pornographic actor) is preferred. -- Banjeboi 08:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I merely went with what was obvious and was there already. It seemed more important to point the wlink away from the living person it was not; if i chose the incorrect restrictor, that's changeable too. Cheers,Lindsay^Hi 09:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Again, thank you for doing it! -- Banjeboi 10:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You are doing it again

I have already complained to Peterkingiron since you seem again to be following me around to edit things that no one else has edited. Your only source seems always to be the Clare webpage which contradicts other Clare webpages. The paragraph you deleted had no foundation in your reason for deleting it. It further detailed an important event and was propertly source. Since I know you are following me around and playing your game again, I went immediately to Peterkingiron which, if you studied his dispute resolution, you would find that he defends Gerald of Wales, my source. This is not a game, and in following me around and editing everything I do, even editing this same medieval chronicler that Peteringiron defended, just because "you" don't like the wording, you may ultimately show a side of you which you try very hard to conceal to others. There can be no doubt that what you are doing to me is deliberate and not worthy of Wiki standards. Please stop this. Mugginsx (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Muggins: Please, take a deep breath, step back for a minute, and let's get back to where we were. I think we were both assuming good faith. Let's continue. That would mean, for you, that you assume i am not being a vandal, but i have an actual, honest, if mistaken, purpose in editing. In fact, i do. What you added, to several de Clare pages, which i then reverted, is incorrect. Now, don't get in a huff, but continue reading while i show you what i mean.

In this edit you have put that Gerald says Richard Fitz Gilbert was assassinated after the death of Henry I, which was in 1135; Richard died in 1090, so whatever Gerald says, you have put misleading information back in.

In this edit you repeated that Richard is the earliest identifiable progenitor of the [de Clare] family. Then you kindly define "progenitor" for me; i know what it means, thank you. Perhaps you would like to use your dictionary and look up both "earliest" and "identifiable"; we know who Richard's father was, that means that at the least we know and can identify one earlier progenitor of the family. That is why i am reverting you again.

Let's discuss this, reasonably, please, without throwing around accusations of vandalism. Cheers,Lindsay^Hi 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay, please look at this website INTERNET ARCHIVE, then look up Gerald or Itinerary through Wales. At Item 48 you will see the following, direct quotes from the text, which I have cut and pasted here: "This Richard Fitz Gilbert came into England with William the Conqueror, and received from him great advancement in honour and possessions. On the death of the Conqueror, favouring the cause of Robert Curthose, he rebelled against William Rufus, but when that king appeared in arms before his castle at Tunbridge, he submitted; after which, adhering to Rufus against Robert, in 1091, he was taken prisoner, and shortly after the death of king Henry I., was assassinated, on his journey through Wales, in the manner already related." Yes, Tonbrige is misspelled, a common error at the time, spelling phonetically, as everyone knows. Now I have shown you my source for his date of death, what is your source? The Clare Family History website again; because if so, you can check other sites and find other dates. I want to assume good faith with you Lindsay, really I do, but why am I always the person you pick a fight with? Though I think you are wrong, I will concede in your correction of earliest identifiable progenitor - my interpretation is that in what I read, since he was illegtimate his father's name would not be readily accepted (in that time) in legal records such as the Doomesday Book. However, assuming good faith, I will concede that the statement as I wrote it is open to different interpretations. Mugginsx (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that what you have quoted is another man's discussion of Gerald's text, footnotes taken as text (as happened with manuscripts fairly frequently in scriptoria). I have looked at theinternet archive copy of Gerald, and clearly it is in two pieces: The text, and a large series of footnotes. This is the text: It happened a short time after the death of king Henry I., that Richard de Clare, a noble of high birth, and lord of Cardiganshire, passed this way on his journey from England into Wales, accompanied by Brian de Wallinford, lord of this province, and many men-at-arms. At the passage of Coed Grono, and at the entrance into the wood, he dismissed him and his attendents, though much against their will, and proceeded on his journey unarmed; from too great a presumption of security, preceded only by a minstrel and a singer, one accompanying the other on the fiddle. One of the footnotes contains the text you are using as a source. Our Richard was not lord of Cardiganshire, he had no lands in Wales as i recall, the first of the family receiving Chepstow or Striguil being his children's generation.

For a source for his death date, i have no idea why you keep referring to a Clare family site, as i don't think i've once used such a thing; no, i refer you again to Michael Altschul, A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares, 1217-1314, which, though you didn't like it last time i mentioned it, is a top of the line scholarly dissertation on the family.

If you still aren't happy, how about the DNB which says this: The precise date of Richard de Clare's death is not known. He appears in the vision of the priest of Bonneval, as recounted by Orderic Vitalis and dated 1091, so his death must have been known by that year. You'll notice that it refers to Orderic's account, so you'll be happy with the Medieval chronicler still being used as a source. Not only that, but the DNB has an article on a man called Richard fitzGilbert de Clare, or Richard of Ceredigion, who died in 1136, murdered, as recorded by Gerald of Wales. Will you now accept you might have been mistaken, and correct your reversion to a better version? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We are stating the same death year - 1091. I don't know who the editor was that put in 1090 in the first sentence and the reference. That was NOT MY WORK. I changed all to say 1091. But you took out Geralds date which was also 1091. I do not understand what you are referring to. Incidentally, I am happy with you using a medieval chronicler and also. Which DNB you are using. Do you have a subscription to the Oxford Library where the most recent DNB is? Mugginsx (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It might have been me that put 1090 there, ages ago, i didn't bother to look at the history. At any rate, Richard Mortimer, in DNB, shows between 1087 and 1090; so long as we show he was dead by or in 1091 we'll be accurate. I can access the DNB website through my library; apparently they have a subscription for all their patrons. Good benefit.

The only other point, now, is the section talking about Richard of Ceredigion's murder under Richard fitzGilbert. Would you like to remove that, or shall i? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 22:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Richard de Clare, 1st Earl of Hertford? (also Earl of Ceredigion)? I am afraid I do know to what or where you are referring? I have just glanced at the article again and I see no mention of him. It is not in my work. Perhaps you are referring to Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare a/k/a Richard de Clare 1st Earl of Hertford? It is all so confusing but according to "his" webpage, his birth and death date, he is a different person - a later de Clare who was a lord of Cardiganshire as it was later known, or the earlier name of Ceredigion. Incidentally, you are fortunate to have the more recent DNB at your disposal. Must be nice to live in Wales! Mugginsx (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am using direct quotes of Gerald. At any rate, the event in the woods you quote is a different incident. I think perhaps you have mixed up Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare (son of Gilbert de Clare) with Richard Fitz Gilbert. There were at least three de Clares' that were murdered in the forest, in fact, Two were murdered at the same time, father and son, Gilbert and his son, Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare. As for lands in Wales, the Chronicles state that Richard Fitz Gilbert was given "many lands" after the Conquest, not naming them all. At any rate we are talking about different de Clares. The DNB even states that there is some confusion about them. Mugginsx (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the paragraph you had left in De Clare talking about Richard de Clare, 1st Earl of Hertford under a reference to Richard Fitz Gilbert, but i see someone else took it out, so all is well. You'll notice, in his edit summary,PurpleHz refers to not doing original research? We've had this conversation before, so please bear it in mind as you continue to add to the de Clare pages.

Again, I checked thru all of my history and I do not see where I mentioned First Earl of Hertford anywhere? Perhaps someone else's work?

Incidentally, i realised last night that i hadn't answered your question from earlier: [W]hy am I always the person you pick a fight with? I assure you, i don't pick fights with anyone; but when i find incorrect or misleading information i change it. That's the beauty of this Wikipedia project. As for it being you always, well, i did point out some time ago that we'd meet again; and we have. But i am involved elsewhere as well, there are currently 261 articles on my watchlist, and they only get there when i edit them; a bunch are, to be sure, from the Medieval period of British history, but there are plenty of others, and i occasionally edit them, too. It's simply because i've been here longer than you, so mine has had a chance to grow more. Over time, i expect you'll get others as well, at first when you are reading something and see an especially egregious typographical error you cannot bear not to correct and, bingo!, there's another page you're interested in. All this is a long-winded way of saying, anyway, that i am not, have not, and do not pick fights with you or anyone else. So, until we bump into each other again, Cheers,Lindsay^Hi 12:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is always good when an unbias and informed third person comes into a debate, when he corrects our mistakes it ultimately makes the article better and the most accuracte it can be. I am content with the changes. I thought we were pushing along quite well this time. I withdrew my complaint to Peterkingiron to again assume good faith with you. Sorry if you do not seem to feel the same. I checked the history of your edits and again, it turns out that both articles were done by others with only 2 or 3 minor spelling and punctuation edits and a few words done by you, until I started to add information to the article. I don't know why you are upset. You and I really had nothing invested in either article. If we have both learned something, can not it only be for the good?Mugginsx (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

List bluelink clean-up.

I started a section for those of us doing clean-up of the main bluelinks at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films#November 2009 - thread to ensure main bluelinks accurate. -- Banjeboi 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

de clare

Lindsay, since we have been informed that we are talking about three different de Clares, do you think that the sentence you restored should be in a different paragraph? I am not sure since I do not have the most recent DNB access. Do what you think best.Mugginsx (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you are wrong as well, and perhaps a little too quick with your accusations. Anyway, so far I have only been edited by you and two other persons that I can see. Many of my edits have not ever been challenged because they were correct. I am sure that it also true with you, more so, since you have been doing this a lot longer. As I have said before, if the finished article is correct then I'm happy and so should be everyone else. Mugginsx (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Shiny Barnstar!

		The Society Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Society Barnstar for your help in cleaning upList of male performers in gay porn films which helps advance the general understanding of the given society of these performers. When others offered less than inspirational criticism you instead acted and helped clean-up a topic that needed help. -- Banjeboi 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Burwash

This article is meets WP:Notability because he is a former professional tennis player, which the information is scant about him online, but here is the links that I compiled. You can use these to make the article better if you would like...

• [[5]]
• [[6]]
• [[7]]
• [[8]]

Thanks, BLUE_DOG^TN 10:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

de Clare

- Ok Lindsay, I guess I am supposed to believe the other 650 some articles you have worked or are working on brought you right back to me again. LEAVE BALDWIN'S NAME ALONE. If anyone find the name confusing, let me assure you it is ONLY YOU. However, in the spirit of Christmas, to please you, I also put in an "also known as" fitz Gilbert. I did appreciate that you linked it properly. I am afraid I inadvertently replaced it with a red link. Lindsay, I know you BELIEVE that you are THE expert on the Clare Family, unfortunately, you are not, nor am I. If you were you would have contributed to the many other Clare articles still listed as "stubs". Oh, that's right you did try on one and "the other Boleyn girl - Jeanne" filled the rest up within hours. Incidentally, it is NOT correct to link the fitz with the Gilbert - as in fitzGilbert - they were two different words at that time and not yet anglicized as the French and English editors will both assure you, if not everybody else. God, I always thought Dickens made up Scrooge but I guess I was wrong about that too. It is times like this I wish I could have a holiday drink and toast you, but, of course, Baptist (my sect anyway) do not drink. Happy Holidays.

On second thought, there is something that you can do; the stub for Baldwin de Meules needs to have a re-direct to Baldwin fitz Gilbert. That would help readers and editors to be sure they are the same person. Another thing I have not learned to do yet, but I have faith you can accomplish it. Mugginsx (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I re-arranged de Clare introductory paragraphs without changing anyone's text. I think you will agree with me that it was beginning to look like a chid's primer. It could use some headings? Maybe you woould accomodate? My hand tremor is rather severe today. Mugginsx (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Another day has past and I have put in some headings to de Clare. Mugginsx (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

MarmadukePercy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sorry

I didn't mean vandalize I just wanted to use a valid fact, as a nifty joke on my friend's birthday The post was Rock Star Basem Farahat's Proudness.

Basem Farahat is the vocalist and keyboardist for a band named "Odious" And he is proud to be 30.

I understand that this is not totally ok

Cheers Alex Seif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexseif(talk • contribs) 13:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry. A lot of good editors start out making mistakes or doing what others see as vandalism. Go ahead, now, and contribute something good, worthwhile. And, welcome. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 13:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

House of Clare

Hello again. As you are knowledgeable about this family, I thought you might want to weigh in here: the discussion page. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I went there, but i cannot bring myself to offer my opinion, as i say, because Mugginsxis there, and i just don't want to be near him. But thanks for thinking of me. Cheers,Lindsay^Hi 11:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Entirely understandable. Just wanted to make you aware of the proposed change. Take care, MarmadukePercy(talk) 11:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: DannyS712
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)