User talk:MarmadukePercy/Archive 2

Interesting chap, like most Brits in India notable enough to be written about. I took the liberty of adding sections, one reference, one photo and some small edits.-Marcus (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Roregan (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, including more links to Jane Mayer's work at the New Yorker does nothing to establish notability. I have no doubt that she works for New Yorker, and, as such, would be expected to produce columns for the New Yorker on a regular basis. However, WP:notability requires that someone 'independent' of her establish her noteworthiness. Thanks! Bonewah (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote on my page "Your standard seems to be: if someone does something in the course of their job, then they are simply performing their job and therefore they aren't notable." That's not just my standard, its wikipedia's standard. Consider the first line from Wikipedia:NOTABILITY#General_notability_guideline "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The standard here is clear, what is needed is someone else, besides her or the New Yorker, to establish her notability. The National Book Award would have done it, except she didnt win, she was only nominated. Her politics or mine dont enter into it at all. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the Columbia Journalism School's John Chancellor Award puts this issue to bed, no? Roregan (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Im terribly sorry that following the rules is such a burden to you, perhaps if Roregan would try to do something productive it would go quicker. Just so you know, no the Chancellor Award didnt really put the issue to bed, i am, however, content that some effort has been made to, you know, follow the rules as far as notability is concerned and wont grouse about further. Bonewah (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to take the time to apologize for being gruff with you earlier, and applaud your efforts vis-a'-vie Jane Mayer. I know i can be tough to deal with at times, but the article really is 100x better now, and so i award you

Sorry for being a jerk, fantastic work on the article. Bonewah (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that! I wasn't sure, checked WP:MOS and that usage wasn't listed, so I removed the formatting. I trust your judgment though, so thanks for the fix. :) -- edi(talk) 03:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference that I added was to support the assertion that the Shacklefords were prominent in the Monticello Association, rather than the presence of a family cemetery in Keswick, which is why I added the reference in the sentence prior to the clause naming the existence of a family cemetery. I'm troubled by the lack of support for the "long prominent in Albemarle and Orange County" claim, but that's for another day. :) --WaldoJ (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello MarmadukePercy, I was very impressed by, and very interested in, where you received all that information on Robert Keith Leavitt. I did add a book he wrote, "The Chip on Grandma's Shoulder" to the article. Are you a relative? Frater618 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good morning. I've copied the discussion we were having on my talk page to the PTSD talk page so that others may comment. -Zefryl (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you were adding Exeter alumni. Especially with living persons, it is really important to ensure that there is an independent source confirming alumni status, or that both the alumnus and the school agree on it. --Taeshadow (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue I have is with the phrase "most selective", which seems to serve no purpose other than to brag about the school (not saying you're doing that, just that that's how it reads to me). Also, putting admissions stats (especially when they're favorable) in the lead paragraph seems to do the same thing. Maybe the facts could be reworked somehow?. --Taeshadow (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Most selective" is hardly a well-defined term. How can you use it in a way that will not come off as a value judgement? If you want to quote admissions statistics, that's fine, but putting them in the lead paragraph seems to give them undue weight. Please read Wikipedia:BOOSTER. Then, if you want to put it back, I won't personally stop you.--Taeshadow (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"+ Hey, just noticed your contribution to the Charles Wellford Leavitt article. Interesting, and thank you. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)"

Your welcome. Glad you understand systematic editing by major and effective contributors and that you checked this edit and then took the time to advise me of your assessment of my contribution. Hope I didn't make a mistake. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Marmaduke. Have you done anything about submitting to DYK? By my count it's eligible, just. Though created more than five days ago, it had 446 words on March 17, and has 3,322 words now, a more than 5x expansion in the last five days. However, that means, if my calculations are correct, it has to be submitted for DYK by midnight, UTC. I can't right now but I can try to do so after I get back from work in the short time window left me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just a quick note: I haven't read the article thoroughly so I don't know if this is covered, but I heard an interview with the chief editor or executive editor of El Diario on NPR on Sunday and he was talking about how the newspaper crisis has not affected El Diario as well as many other niche foreign languiage newspapers and gave a whole host of reasons why. I thought it might be a good subject for expansion if sources can be found.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on March 23.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's in the "next update" page (here), meaning it should be on the main page in a few hours. A user reduced it almost completely to did you know ... that the future of American newpspapers is in doubt? I thought that bowdlerized it so I restored the version with statistics on young verses old readership but it may not make it in in that form. We'll see.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know the propriety of changing a hook once it's in a queue. My suggestion is come up with the proposed alternate hook and post to Wikipedia talk:Did you know about what you should do now that it's in a queue, linking in your post Template:Did you know/Queue/5 where the hook currently sits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Completed the references. Don't worry about it. It's much easier for someone who has a great deal of glib knowledge on using them to do than for someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time in those particular salt mines. Just note that when you cite a single refernce more than once, you don't repeat the full citaton each time (I haven't checked that this was you, I just note that it needed to be fixed in the article in multiple places). If you already know this ignore the following explanation: Instead of posting a single citation in its entirey again, give the first use of it a name and then each time you wish to cite it later,, you can use just the name you provided, with a trailing slash. Example: give the reference a name thusly (typically use the name of the author you are citing): <ref name="Hemingway">{{cite web|url=?|title=?|publisher=?|date=?}}</ref>. The next ten times you want to cite the same source, you simply use the opening with a space and backslash: <ref name="Hemingway" /> This does not just save you time but transforms the redundant multiple iterations in the references section into a single one with clickable links for each use marked with superscripted letters, like so ^{a b c}. See here for what I mean. Best wishes to you and yours.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. I fixed the first one or two and had planned on fixing the rest. :-) — Becksguy (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much appreciated. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

--Dravecky (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the DYK. Thanks to Barnabypage for creating it, and to you for bringing it into it's great state. Every time I came across a useful reference, I noticed you had already included it in the article. Wonderful job. — Becksguy (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys did all the heavy work. I was just effectively the slot man moving copy around, more or less. Reminds me of a great cartoon I saw while I was still working: Cartoon of a reporter with copy in his hand talking to someone and saying: "I love deadlines. Especially the whooshing sound as they go by" — Becksguy (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PS - Attributed to Douglas Adams [1] "I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as they go flying by." Hmmm... My memory wasn't that off. — Becksguy (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

After well over 25 years in the newspaper business, I find all these pieces on folding and troubled newspapers painful. The internet and the economic meltdown are the 1-2 punches that are knocking out the press, but the sad fact is that newspaper reading (and reading in general) was declining before that. People apparently became used to the video and sound bites of TV shows and news, and to their celebrity and entertainment values. Unfortunately. IMHO. — Becksguy (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marmaduke, let me know how I can help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We are off to a great start. I would have known you were very familiar with journalism from your use of jargon (e.g. - graph) and writing style. I also come from the newspaper world, and my father was an investigative reporter. BTW, I added myself to the membership of WikiProject Journalism at Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism/Participants. Now we need to structure the article so as to allow promotion from stub class and to increase readability. — Becksguy (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I added a section on US J-schools. You are a better writer than I am, so I won't get upset if you edit mercilessly. I know there are sources other than the NYT (I remember seeing them before), but I wanted to get something into the article soonest. Interesting that the Walter Cronkite J-School now includes the phrase "Future of journalism" in a course title. That also adds support for the article title, I think. — Becksguy (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think there should be a section (or subsection) on the loss of journalism jobs nationally? It's extremely discouraging. Forbes reports 10K jobs lost since 2001, 5K in 2008, and an estimated 7,500 lost this year so far.[2] Without a vibrant, vigilant, and independent fourth estate, democracy is in trouble. Thanks for fixing my deathless prose. I usually edit and re-edit my posts, but I just did a quick job on the J-school stuff. — Becksguy (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for some time. For your hard work in improving Samuel Lincoln, I award you this stovepipe hat of excellence! Cheers! bd2412 T 05:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! You've visited my talk page a few times in the past and I like your tone. I find myself in need of a mentor to help me make the occasional quick decision. For instance, today I started changing "External website" headings to "External links", which I believe is the Manual of Style standard, but I want to check that idea before changing the 130 so that are out there. Would you mind if I came to you for this, or if it is not your bag, can you refer me to a good copy editor?

I tend to keep my head down and just task-focus, so don't really know who is who. LilHelpa (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice article about John Prinsep. But are you sure he only had one daughter? I seem to remember seeing a reference to more than one. Was your source very certain there was only one?Southdevonian (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Marmaduke, if I ignored something. I have no memory of what it was, I'm afraid. Most of my WP time has been taken up lately with various issues. My apologies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why I removed the lists of people: They all need references, or else (in the case of the living people) it infringes Wikipedia:BLP. Every single person on the list needs a Wikipedia:Reliable source that states that he/she is from there. Even if the person's Wikipedia article says so too, there needs to be a reference on the municipality page.

To search for references go to news.google.com. Each reference needs to explicitly indicate that the said person is from the city. If you want I can help you source, and restore, the entries. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, he may be restored :) - Put the url between the <ref> and </ref> tags. Please also include the author, publication, date, and access date. For more info on citing, see Wikipedia:Citing sources WhisperToMe (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine :) - One can add a name to the reference (i.e. <ref name="ABC">) and use it multiple times (other instances would be <ref name="ABC"'''/'''>) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. I found a nice little collection of portraits at the New York Public Library; it should go some way towards filling in the blanks in portraits of the Founding Fathers. Now if I could only get a better portrait of Henry Wynkoop... --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I am the Lancaster project admin and that is a webpage I made. I hope you liked it? If your interest is medieval Lancasters I can send you a copy of an article I wrote, just let me know how. Do you know any Lancasters?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no free link, that's why I'd need to mail you with an attachment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you! :) I try my best. I like to think of myself as Wikipedia's Night Shift. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marm - Good to hear from you - I thought that might rattle your cage. Best regards Motmit (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed you. Btw, I was at Branford College - back before Yale became coed, sigh. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, as soon as I saw that vocabulary choice I said to myself "uh oh, anything this user writes is going to be a grammatical, syntatical, nightmare." I only gave a cursory glance at the edit as I was just about out the door, but that article merits better than references to blogs and the like. By the, way, anytime your need a DYK done (or anything else, do drop by:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, let me ask your something. Given your profession, would you possibly have free access to pay newspaper databases? I am hunting for information for an article. Specifically, when I wrote Kelly pool (which I plan to take to FAC) I actually made a few discoveries about its origin which, while coming straight out of reliable sources, were lost to modern billiards scholarship. I want to expand if I can but am stymied by what I can find for free online. I have no idea if you have such access but if you do, I can provide concrete names to search for and it shouldn't take but a few minutes if you have access.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did ask....

It's perhaps best to begin with the "Proceedings of the Vinland Map Conference". The conference, held in 1966 (though the Proceedings were not published until 1971) opened with a presentation from Laurence Witten about the process by which the Map came to America. Here's the first key sentence, from page 5, describing events in September 1957:

"Ferrajoli arranged to take me to see the owner. I saw his library, saw the Vinland Map and Tartar Relation volume, and thought that the map was a genuine fifteenth-century prouct. I bought the volume and several other things on the spot."

Winter 1957-8. Having understood the potential significance of the mismatched wormholes in the VM and Tartar Relation:

"I asked Ferrajoli very particularly to revisit the former owner of the Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation to try to locate in the library the hypothetical missing link. Ferrajoli reported that he did this but could find nothing." (page 6)

1958-9. Following the "fortuitous" acquisition by Thomas Marston of the "missing link" volume:

"The owner of the library in which both volumes still resided in 1957 says he does not know the origin of the volumes but thinks they had been in his library for two or more generations." (page 8)

During discussions, Witten explained why the 1957 owner supposedly insisted on confidentiality (tax evasion), but added:

"the Vinland Map came from a private library of fairly large dimensions. It had in it a rather large number of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century printed books and a rather large number of manuscripts. When I saw it first, it had already incurred a certain number of losses through other sales." (page 14)

Note the word "first" in that last sentence, implying that Witten had made further visits, not specifically mentioned in his presentation. Witten stayed to hear other presentations at the Conference, and occasionally joined in the discussion. For example (page 26):

"It seems necessary that I state categorically that the proceeds of the sale in their entirety were paid directly to Mrs. Witten and that her financial records will show no payment of any kind to Mr. Ferrajoli or to Mr. Davis or any 'straw man' intermediary. Likewise, my own accounts, both private and business, will show that I never at any time made any such payment to either of these gentlemen or to any other individual who might be connected with this matter."

Now flash forward to the 1980s, and a new essay by Witten entitled "Vinland's Saga Recalled", which eventually became pages xli to lviii of the second edition of the Skelton book. In this version, the Map/Tartar Relation volume is acquired directly from Ferrajoli and Nicolas Rauch, the Swiss dealer who had introduced him, without any library visit. During the subsequent authentication process:

"I continued by correspondence to press Enzo Ferrajoli for details of the history of the map and related manuscripts, even though there was no special pressure from the Yale Library or the scholars at work on The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation." (page liii)

Describing his 1966 Conference presentation, Witten claimed:

"It is no pleasure to relate that the bookseller, back to the wall, believing passionately that the Vinland Map was not a fake but unable to provide the proof demanded, fell back on the only crutch he could think of: his source's story. Yes, I knew from which library the Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation had come, but I had promised not to reveal it to any third party." (page lvi)

He also changed his story on payment:

"I paid Rauch an immediate commission on my purchase and promised to pay more substantial sums to him and Ferrajoli if the manuscript were later authenticated and resold". (page xlv- which also contains the interesting revelation that at the time of purchase, Ferrajoli arranged for Witten to meet in Milan with Irving Davis, the dealer who had taken the Map to the British Museum, and who later sent an advance copy of the catalogue containing the bargain-priced "missing link" volume to Witten's friend Thomas Marston).

Note that in this essay, Witten is trying to emphasise that he invented the lie about visiting the library at the 1966 Conference. However, a look at the original 1965 Skelton volume (which Witten had checked at galley-proof stage) shows that this is itself a lie. Marston, in his introductory description and history of the manuscripts, commented on the search for other volumes of the Speculum Historiale set to which the precious manuscripts had evidently once belonged:

"Mr. Witten returned to the private library whence came the map and the Vincent, but an intensive search was fruitless." (page 3)

Kirsten Seaver's book "Maps, Myths, and Men" exposes a great many more questionable dealings in the story of the Vinland Map, but nobody has yet really investigated the great big elephant in the middle of the room: the role of Paul Mellon. David Trochos (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Given your interest in Laurence Witten, did you by any chance ever see an article titled "The Witten-Rawlins Collection: International Intrigue and Big Bucks"? It was published in the Journal of the Violin Society of America (vol 12, no. 2, 1992), and I've occasionally wondered about ordering a copy, though it probably has nothing to do with the Vinland Map as such, just because of the title! David Trochos (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Funnily enough, the main reason why there isn't already a Laurence C. Witten II Wikipedia page, written by me, is because here in the UK I find it almost impossible to get information about him, except for brief snippets relating to the Vinland Map, his music collections, his ancient American art collections etc., none of which really gives a picture of how everything fits together. Even those ancestry.com pages seem to say more about Laurence Claiborne Witten I (died 1937) than the one we would now consider "famous". David Trochos (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Laurence (II) was indeed an aesthete, but he was also a very smart, hard-nosed businessman. Writing a biographical article that balances those aspects of his character, and shows how everything links together, is a fairly formidable challenge. Clearly, at the very least I'm going to have to get that intriguing Violin Society article! David Trochos (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now created a basic page for Laurence Claiborne Witten II. Anything you can to do improve it would be greatly appreciated! David Trochos (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since acquiring a copy of the Violin Society of America article, I've updated and referenced this page. The article actually says very little about the Wittens, being more of an introduction to the Shrine To Music Museum and its principal sponsors, Robert and Marjorie Rawlins. David Trochos (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, categories need to be defining and supported by the article. In this case clearly it is not defining and it is not supported by article text. If you are doing this for a number of articles, I suggest that you stop and review WP:CAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was reading Henry Leavitt Ellsworth, which article you wrote more-or-less singlehandedly. It seems self-contradictory with regard to the parentage of his wife Nancy Allen Goodrich. At one point, it seems her parents are given as Elizur Goodrich and his wife Anne Willard, while at another point, it is stated that she is daughter of Chauncey Goodrich. I suspect the first mention should say that she is granddaughter of Elizur Goodrich and daughter of Chauncey Goodrich. On the other hand, I might just be confused.... - Nunh-huh 04:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you had a look as well. The problem was mostly the result of trying to cram too much information into a single sentence, I think, which was misread and added to another article. Hopefully it's correct and clear now :) - Nunh-huh 18:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I really don't have a definitive view either way - I think probably 2 or 3 generations warrant a "__ by descent" category, but then I know that a lot of people get very exercised about their "Irish American" heritage many generations after any connection with Ireland! I haven't seen any kind of consensus on this issue either, so maybe it's worth asking for comment at WP:BIOG?  – ukexpat (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the Leavitt articles in general, but I think a lot of the images you added are skating on the edge of pertinence per Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature ("Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic").

A picture of the biography's subject, or something they made or were directly involved in, fine; but I'm not sure of images with once-removed connections like that for Frank McDowell Leavitt (a German torpedo for the bio of an American torpedo engineer); Humphrey H. Leavitt (pic of Andrew Jackson, because he appointed him); the astronomical pic for Dudley Leavitt (publisher); the wagon train "like that led by" Thomas Rowell Leavitt; the Crow Chief eulogized by Scott Leavitt; an automobile, but not actually the one involved in the Ralph Leavitt saga; and so on.

I worked in journalism myself, and it's a bit of habit I find hard to break, to find an illustration at all costs even if the connection's a bit tangential. But generally Wikipedia practice is tight pertinence or omit. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It did strike me afterwards that perhaps The Cyder House Inn took the text from Wikipedia and I was setting up circular referencing. I look forward to your future reference. I'm delighted that someone from Seattle is taking such an interest in an English village! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Russell arms ready for use:      
Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

many thank for the barnstar, it really was simply a case of copy paste art with free licenses. I posted a note at File:Russell of that Ilk Arms.svg on my thinking about the arms of the Russell of that Ilk. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

yes crest should be a fountain proper, motto: Agitatione Purgatus. The confusion has been that the source you gave confirms this, but when I read it I thought you were advancing the ref to argue the other motto and crest. I did'nt understand the ref's arguments as I thought the points raised infact pointed out the opposite. I have reread the reference and see that Paterson is clearly stating that the arms, crest and motto for the Russell of that Ilk should be Ar. a chev. bewt. three pewits sa, crest: a fountain proper, motto: Agitatione Purgatus. I have rewriten my notes at File:Russell of that Ilk Arms.svg to take into account Paterson's agreemnent. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

update: drew further arms:    
these arms are those of the Russell Baronets, of Charlton Park; and those of the Russells of Blackbraes, Stirling. Blackbraes seems to be addressing the confusion of the two Russells with elements from both families: The Duke of Bedford- Lyon gule with chief sable and motto che sera sera, and Russell of that Ilk- three pewits sable and a fountain. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think any thoughts as to the reason for Blackbraes using both family destictions can be only speculation on our part. However several points can be raised: Blackbraes is definitely an attempt to use distinctions in the arms of the Russell's in England and those of Scotland; the reason I am so certain is that the motto "che sera sera" is clearly pointing to the English side, and the Pewits to the Scottish side. These two heraldic devices could not be coincidence (the lyon gu. chief sable, and fountain could on the other hand be simple coincidence) as they are quasi unique to each family. Why this would be done is another matter, my thinking is that it may be quite innocent, i.e. a Russell who can show descendance from Russells in England but also from Russells in Scotland. There is however a general confusion, both as to who is Russell of that Ilk and whether the Russells have black Pewits or Tadpoles in their arms. My original concern was not so much who was "of that Ilk", that seemed quite certain in my mind, the problem I found difficult was whether the Russells have black Pewits or Tadpoles. My fear was that the general armory had made a typing error (Pewit instead of Powet Powt). Seeing the word written another way "greinplouers" by Balfour was enough to quell my fears that the general armory was in error. Then again the error could be copied by Balfour from an older transcription. It would be good to see the Hague Armorial that may have the answer, I used to have a copy of this on my computer but seemed to have lost the file in a computer crash last year, pity- a very useful file and I cant for the life of me recall where I got it from. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

added other versions with tadpoles to image bank:   

may be useful for your clan article explaining the different versions recorded and the possible confusion with the words pewit and powet Powt. Note also that the version here of Ashiestiel has a martlet insteed of a mullet- This seems to indecate the source of the references being a very bably hand written text which can be interpreted in various ways. I have seen the early recordds in the Lyon office andd can confirm that the early records are handwritten and often very difficult to read. Yours ever Czar Brodie (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed it because I left it in an odd place, but what I wrote, or meant to write, was " I'm glad you had a look as well. The problem was mostly the result of trying to cram too much information into a single sentence, I think, which was misread and added to another article. Hopefully it's correct and clear now :) - Nunh-huh 18:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, MarmadukePercy, thanks for the kind words regarding Holmes's article. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it! I can't take all the credit, however, as it was a joint effort between Midnightdreary and myself. MD's the real 19th-century, New England literary elite expert. I'm merely the nerdy librarian. ;) Take care, María (habla conmigo) 01:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, MarmadukePercy, thanks for comments on Deacon Edmund Rice. In the notes for the section there is a link to the Edmund Rice (1638) Association DNA project that has coded haplotype info from dozens of living descendants (http://www.edmund-rice.org/haplotype.htm). The descendants listed in the article are linked via traditional 'paper trail' genealogy. Innapoy (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to the link. On the page look for the "Group 1" on Table 1 well down the page. These are the haplogroups of known Edmund descendants, plus the reconstruction of Edmund's presumed haplotype I happen to be #87949 in Group #1 (descendant of Thomas I). Robert Royce of New London CT descendants make up Group #3. That's what I know. The Historian of the Edmund Rice (1638) Association maintains the code key of individuals corresponding to individuals of the Association who have taken part in the study. Innapoy (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Done. Innapoy (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Just about every month. Which honestly...is that a good thing? :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. :) Another user and I have a friendly rivalry going on over that project. I believe he beat me by 40 edits for August. Right now I'm up by about 50 over him but I doubt it will last. :) Fun thing to get into. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 08:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Marmaduke. Thanks for your improvements to the Vinland Map and Laurence C. Witten II articles. I have just one query about the latter. I forgot to reference the source for my claim that Laurence and Cora obtained BMus degrees from Yale, but it was the Yale Alumni Magazine. Do you reckon the writer of the article made a mistake, and do you have access to relevant resources which could be referenced in the article? David Trochos (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your further amendment Marmaduke; I've added the reference I had forgotten, and reduced the duplication of degree descriptions. David Trochos (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to improve the Joe Wilson article. Your recent edit was not WP:NPOV and had no reference to support the assertion that he became notable for a particular reason. Even with these changes, it is very likely to violate WP:LEAD, so I had to revert it. — Mike :  tlk  05:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I'm aiming for an article evidencing the highest possible standards, a goal which I believe is necessitated by the importance of the topic. Your continuing commentary is most welcome. I'm hoping for an A-class ranking for this article by the end of 2009. TomCloyd (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, Eulau certainly deserves an article eventually. Not sure I'll be getting around to it soon, but I'd certainly be happy to help out eventually. Maybe you could already put in a basic stub?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I note your posts to me but still haven't gotten to this sorry. I should point out that I have never spent much times on the Eulau report or its details.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I shall have a look into it sometime. I also had a go at John Levett - hope you approve. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for the kind thoughts...believe it or not, you're actually the first person who has recognized me for all of my signature images. Thank, again! Connormah (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I am here for the long haul, be assured. The Psychological trauma article is one I definitely have had my eye on, for some time. PTSD first, though. Trying to push through the remaining time-monsters on my schedule this weekend and get to some work here. I hope soon to have much more time to do some work here. TomCloyd (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your source appears mistaken as to the exact nature of the naming of Plymouth. See my comments at the article talk page. It may be named after Plymouth in Devon, but it was NOT so named by the colonists themselves; it bore that name 4 years before the colonists showed up, so any source which indicates the colonists themselves chose the name is somewhat suspect. John Smith named the place Plymouth, as already explained in the article, and had published maps and books naming it such by 1616, four years before the colonists left for the New World. --Jayron32 03:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See article talk page. I found an 1856 edition of Bradford which, in the editorial footnotes, clearly indicates the two ideas in one statement; that the area had been named by Smith, but that the colonists kept the name for its connection to the port they departed from. I have updated the article with this information. --Jayron32 03:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi; may i ask you to take a look here at the talk page you commented on a few days ago? I've made a couple of suggestions about how the page might look, and an outside view would be useful. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 05:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Quincy political family. Please keep in mind that we need verifiable sources for these edits. The fact that you haven't added any is problematic for a list that relies heavily on as little as one or two sources already. Do you have sources to support your edits to the list? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please check the Talk page, the isuue of time of orgin is discussed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagbesh (talk • contribs) 06:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

the following below is taken from R1a talk page:

Time of origin I think that 36000 YBP is too far please check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA), Haplogroup R is estimated to be 26,800 years BP 77.30.74.47 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Haplogroup P is estimated to be 25,000-34,000 years BP, please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_P_(Y-DNA). 87.101.224.234 (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Further more, I just found out that Haplogroup NOP time of origin is estimated as 25,000-30,000 years BP, please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_NOP_(Y-DNA)!! 87.101.224.234 (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem is possibly that there are a lack of estimates in recent years. Anyone know of a good one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats true Andrew, but 36000 YBP is clearly too far 94.98.136.23 (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know, I am aware of the problem, as you can see from previous comments on the talk page. I do not think anyone should take too much of a hard line because the sourcing is not easy. Has anyone got a copy of that new article yet?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind welcome on my talk page. As I'm fairly new I'm happy to receive any advice I can get, I don't promise to accept it all ;-). I'm also getting more confused about Croxall (talk) by the minute! Jan1naD - (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a note to Talk:Croxall regarding the lost village of Oakley, always in Staffordshire yet part of the Derbyshire ecclesiatical parish of Croxall. Jan1naD - (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, my holiday fell through: INS chose not to let me board a plane, for bizarre reasons related to this, so here i am again. I see you and Mugginsx are still, shall we say, debating over the appropriateness of his additions. Quite a lot of fun, isn't it. This is the first time i've been involved in an edit war, of any kind, in the couple of years i've been here. I've watched a few play out, and not been jealous of the participants; now i know how it feels. Dear oh dear. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 12:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 13:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to be continually careful about the tendency the R1a article has for EVERYONE to put their favorite place in... concerning [this edit], which high levels are you thinking of? Are you sure that they are higher than some unlisted places like ones in Spain and Italy? Are you sure they are not part of Eastern Europe as well as Northern Europe?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing something. The definition of Northern Europe is never clear, but it certainly mainly includes places with low R1a levels. Scandinavia (+Iceland, and a few other island offshoot populations) is the one exception, but Norway is in Eastern Europe, and its R1a population is clearly an offshoot of Eastern European R1a. There is also really nothing at all more important about Norse R1a than other R1a, except presumably your own regional interests concerning one small subset of the much bigger world of R1a. If you may include the place you are most interested in what shall we say to people who want to mention the patchwork of places in Italy, Spain, the Middle East etc which have higher levels of R1a than Britain? Do you know how many times this type of sequence of events has happened on this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason why Scandinavia can not be in Eastern and Northern Europe, but at least for now I note Norway being called Northern and not Eastern in the relevant Wikipedia articles. Still, you are talking about a small population which is clearly a minor offshoot of Eastern Europe. And you are clearly proposing to use a term which strongly implies Britain and Ireland, as well as Denmark, Holland etc, which seems misleading to me. Noway is one of the smallest populations in Northern Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly believe your skills are what is now needed on the R1a article! Please do go for it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)