User talk:Bmcln1

Hello, Bmcln1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although I see you've been busy here for quite some time, I see no-one has yet "welcomed" you, so I'd like to thank you for your contributions. If you are stuck, and looking for help, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few links you might find interesting:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you're enjoying editing here and being a Wikipedian! --Technopat (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the welcome. I'm a bit uncertain if this is how to answer it. I'm busy on the List of English Writers and I hope others will chip in as time goes on. I also have a lengthening list of English writers who haven't got a page, so I hope at least to write stubs for them in the future. I'll be sure to read the pages you recommend before doing so. I also hope to get back to things Hungarian, perhaps translating in some of the literary material on Hungarian Wikipedia, if it's relevant to us. Best wishes. 18:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings again, Bmcln1. I'll pop in occasionally at some of your articles to see how you're doing and do any necessary tweaking. In the meantime, if you have any immediate doubts that you think I might be able to help out with, drop me a line on my User talk:Technopat. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's reassuring to know, Technopat, and thanks in advance. - Bmcln1

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for your tireless work on expanding List of English writers! Keep it up, Airplaneman talk 18:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tweaks too, Airplaneman. I'm not sure what a Barnstar is but it looks a neat thing to have! - Bmcln1

Hi there. The link you just put on the Sedgebrook page to Amazon isn't working for me. (Sorry to be the bearer of bad news ;-)) DancingGerbil (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DG, it was a fairly dodgy source in any case. I now see that the Wikipedia List of closed railway stations in Britain gives 1956, though unreferenced, but that's more what I remember---I would have been 12 at the time and interested in these matters, and living at Elton, so frightened that Elton and Orston railway station might be next! Bmcln1 (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it (I don't know why I didn't do that first, I'm a bit of a noob here!). I thought you must be close, I noticed you've done a lot of work on Bottesford. I just moved to Sedgebrook but my family ties are with Granby. My uncle and auntie (Barnes) used to live at Elton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingGerbil (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Mrs Barnes was a sweetheart. I spoke to her son Maxwell about ten years ago when I was clipping my stepmother's hedge next to the church. She died I should think 30 years go, and Maxwell must be a hundred if he's still around. My stepmother died four years ago so I have no reason to go back. I live in Budapest. Granby: I rather liked Parson Marson, but he was certainly a bit odd. It took him 20 seconds to deliver the parish newsletter. He had a special way of mounting his bicycle with both feet off the ground at once that I could never imitate! Is it true that the Halfnights lived next to the Doubledays, or was my stepmother kidding? I did a bit on Elton then got sidetracked onto Bottesford, really. My real interest is 18th and 19th century English writers who don't have pages, and I've done about 15. I hope you enjoy yourself on here, it's remarkable what you can track down on the net these days. Keep in touch on email if you like: bmcln1 (squiggle) gmail.com. Bmcln1 (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent ... I just read what you've written on Elton, it reads really well. I've added quite a bit to Sedgebrook but it's just a series of sentences, not good reading at all :-( I need more practice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingGerbil (talk • contribs) 11:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to Sedgebrook with some info on the hall, I'd really appreciate your thoughts DancingGerbil (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like that. Very good list, to which other information can be added if it emerges. I think the first sentence of the page is fine. Then I think it needs a subtitle and some gathering up a bit. Public transport and governance are still missing, for instance. I singularly failed to find any famous sons for Elton. The list of incumbents and their patrons may yield somebody. I thought I saw out of one eye as I was doing Bottesford that one of the Sedgebrook vicars had written a novel and advertised in The Times for a typist. The Bottesford history site, by the way, is brilliant, and may have some Sedgebrook stuff on it. Bmcln1 (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Brian. I'll see what I can find on public transport and governance (and look what other people have done). If you get the urge to tidy up my simplistic attempts at English I wouldn't be at all insulted ;-) Is there a reason you haven't used the infobox for Elton? DancingGerbil (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure ignorance is the reason, John! Usually somebody or some bot comes along and does it eventually. Please see the Sedgebrook discussion. Unfortunately we were both working on the page at the same time, so I have stored my version on the Discussion page there, for you splice in if and where you like. I'm dead impressed by the way you handled the references and I must make efforts to follow your example.

Brian, what you wrote is a vast improvement, thanks very much, I simply overwrote what was there with yours. I'm working my way through the census data (from the Elizabeth Hampson site) to get some summary information and will publish it at some point. It's a bit addictive this Wikipedia isn't it? ;-) DancingGerbil (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very addictive. What I'm doing is sleeping less, eating faster, and not returning calls. That frees more time for Wiki! I look forward to seeing what you trawl out of the census data. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No problem. While you're at it, could you take a whack at her Tory nephew's article? It's rather embarassing that except for the successor boxes, the article never mentions that he served three spans of time as an M.P., over several decades! (Why do I keep editing articles on Tories? Ah, well, NPOV, toujour NPOV!) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look at him next week. I also want to do her gardening sister. I prefer gardeners to Tories, but bow to your request! ;) Bmcln1 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perchance do you know U.K. science fiction fan Joseph Nicholas, editor of the science fiction fanzines International Revolutionary Gardener and FTT! - Fuck The Tories? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not. I live in Budapest so I'm a bit on a limb. I usually do or expand the pages of less well-known late 18th, early 19th century writers, but also Quakers, and also villages in the Vale of Belvoir, if you know where that is. Full of Tories, of course. Bmcln1 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are thee a Friend? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC) convinced, not birthright[reply]

No, just admire them from a distance of a couple of centuries! You? Bmcln1 (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah; Milwaukee Friends Meeting, to be specific. I'm what we call a "convinced" (i.e., came to Quakerism from another faith) rather than "birthright" Friend (born into the tradition), having arrived there from being Southern Baptist by upbringing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great to know, Mike. I may call on your expertise when I do my next Quaker. I belong to the Penn Club in London, which is a wonderfully Quakery place to stay about five minutes from the British Museum. Wonderful breakfast conversations, we have. Quite a few Americans and Japanese stay there too. Bmcln1 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing - happy to be of help. I love doing categories, actually, so it works out. :-)

Excellent article - keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to reverse some changes you made on the List of children's literature authors page and I'd like to explain why. Although the names of series are not italicized in article space generally, the format of this list is to have the author's name and dates in regular type and the works in italics, including such words "the" and "series" when used. This is so as to present a neat and streamlined list. It also, in theory anyway, makes it easier for editors to match the format. It is surprising how many people use quotes instead of italics, like the ones you corrected. Thanks! Robina Fox (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Robina, I'll study the format more carefully next time. I think the list's growing nicely with help from lots of new editors. Bmcln1 (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was a trifle hurt by the use of the term 'the lost directory' in your recent edit summary on Bottesford, Leicestershire. That kind of directory-style listing of every business in town is so completely not what we do, as per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, that I was startled it had lasted so long as it did. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike! You're absolutely right, of course, and thanks for the link to the directive on the matter, so there can't be any complaints. The page looks a lot better now and the extraction was better performed by a stranger. The page is jogging along quite nicely with 600-700 hits a month, but not much local input, I'm afraid, despite a brilliant local history group. I was wondering about mentioning the fund-raising for a memorial after a nine-year-old girl was murdered there seven or eight years ago---the local children's dance club is named after her and there's a post-tsunami house for orphans in Sri Lanka---but I think I'll wait a few years. The murderer was also local. Are you an East Midlander? Oh no, I remember now, Milwaukee, like Golda Meyr. Bmcln1 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that you have added a note to Linton, West Yorkshire about Lady Margaret Hoby. I have my doubts as to this being the correct place as this if far too west for it to have ever been in the East Riding of Yorkshire. I did drop a note on the talk page but no one has responded as yet. Keith D (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks, Keith. Yes, clearly the wrong riding. I'll try to clear it up if you haven't. Best, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your great effort to protect entries in Methodism and other articles against any form of vandalism. You deserve this. Ric Padgett (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki

I am Mavis Cheek and I have updated my Wikipedia page as I did not approve some of the information and had no idea someone else had submitted my details. It was done without my permission. Please can you replace the first text with my own which I guarantee is authentic. Some of the referenced material used in the first page is quite wrong and has been lifted from articles which were erroneous (as you know, this happens with the press). Nothing is outrageously wrong but it is all a bit wrong - and sometimes very wrong - so I have corrected it - and - I think (since I am a writer) it is now in slightly better English.

Please let me know if you accept this and will use my corrections.

---

Thankyou and best wishes, Mavis Cheek - [email protected] or [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniceGentle (talk • contribs) 09:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mavis Cheek, many thanks for your message; I've sent you an email. Other editors: please treat this page as "work in progress" for the time being. It will be tidied up shortly. Bmcln1 (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All tidied and agreed with the subject. Bmcln1 (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Never revert the wikilinking of articles by a fellow editor so soon after they have done so. Its highly likely they intend writing an article on it. 2. Assume good faith and look into it in more detail before accusing other editors of "advertising".♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld: Thank you for your note. A Wikilink pointing to the wrong person should be removed immediately. Surely Stephen Davenport manager of the Rock Hotel can't be the same as Stephen Davenport the US football coach born in 1967 or it would be noted on his page. Please make your Davenport a Wikipedia page if you can establish notability. Being a hotel manager hardly seems enough. I think your new stub for Wood Hall Hotel and Spa is fine as far as it goes. My problem on the Linton, West Yorkshire page reference to the spa hotel is that it does not appear as a Grade II Listed Building on the list for its parish (Collingham). It will have to be substantiated on some English Heritage list. A hotel brochure, for instance, is not an adequate source for such a claim. Perhaps it lies just over the border in one of the neighbouring parishes? I still think there is too much brochure material in The Rock Hotel but I will leave it to you to prune it, bearing in mind that the requirements of an encyclopaedia reader differ from those of potential guests. Bmcln1 (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, Hale is a real unknown hero of Sheffield and there is very little published information about him. Hope to do some more separate articles on his buildings in the future. Thanks Mick Knapton (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reading about them. Interesting/perhaps worrying that Hale's later, more modernistic churches haven't been listed yet. Bmcln1 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling new pages is a depressing task, endless articles on people who played three matches for a fourth-division Uzbek soccer team and blatant bits of self promotion: it's a real pleasure to come across an article that one actually wants to read. I'm a fan of detective fiction, read most of Wilkie Collins: this man's novel sounds most interesting. Thanks!TheLongTone (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind comments. I'm busy trying to read Adams's Notting Hill Mystery quickly before wrapping it up as a Christmas present, and very exciting it is too. I did visit Uzbekistan in the early 1970s and I can recommend it. For the architecture, though, not the football matches. Thank you for doing all that patrolling. Very important. Cordially, Brian. Bmcln1 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat amused by your revert of my expanded lede. I'm in fact inclined to agree with you with regard to this article -- but I was responding to a comment on the Talk page in relation to a recent assessment of the article, which I had requested.

You might be interested in a recent edit to the English literature article, which I'm in the process of revising. The lede to this article was expanded by someone who has a mission to expand ledes. With this long article I believe he had a good point. I'll try and read-up the WP rules and regulations on ledes. I was, however, led to believe that a lede should be a brief summary of the article as a whole, so isn't one line a little too brief?

Thanks for your interest, as it is helpful to hear a variety of opinions.Rwood128 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for taking the time to comment at length. I particularly like your reference to "that cool, factual, encyclopaedic approach". I'll try and prune the article, and will also re-do the lede, without repetitive biographical information. The bibliography should be pretty complete. Hanley's later novels are superior to those of the 1930s, including Boy. Rwood128 (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you help. I had grown complacent about this article. I will add some brief comment on the Boy trial. Rwood128 (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bmcln1! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

I've accepted the invitation.

According to WP:TPO, editors should not edit the comments of others, including correcting spelling mistakes. An IP address had corrected a spelling on this talkpage, which I reverted because of WP:TPO. I know the spelling is wrong in British English, however the user has the right to misspell things in their comments. If this was in the actual article, I would agree 100% with you. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Point taken. Sorry to bother you. Bmcln1 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you please able to check all refs on the "Lupton family" page Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.36.6 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that a couple of weeks ago you inserted 'innovative' before 'Munich artist Ignatz Guggenberger' on this page. I'm interested in Bevington and would like to know more about Guggenberger, but, aside from their having married, I've come up with next to nothing about him online: only that he decorated ceramics for Villeroy & Boch, and that a picture by a 19th/20th-century artist 'Ignaz' Guggenberger – him? – failed to make its 600 euro reserve price in a Hamburg auction in 2007. I'd be grateful if you could point me to whatever sources led you to describe him as innovative, so I can find out more about him. Radavenport (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. If Guggenberger (not Guggenheimer) was roughly the same age as Bevington when they married – which of course need not have been the case – then I would guess he was born c.1840–50 and so probably most of his career would have been in the 19th century. I also have doubts about the implication in 'In 1883, Bevington left for Germany to marry the innovative Munich artist Ignatz Guggenberger' that marriage was the purpose of LSB's going to Germany. I can't see anything in her various obituaries to support this. The ODNB says, '[I]n 1883 she went to Germany, where she met and married the Munich artist Ignatz Felix Guggenberger'. The 'Marriages' column of the Sussex Agricultural Express for 8 May 1883 says, 'On the 2nd inst., at Munich Church, by the Rev. C. D. Blomefield, Ignatz Felix, eldest son of the late Thomas Guggenberger, of Munich, to Louisa Sarah, eldest daughter of the late Alexander Bevington, of Palace-road, Streatham.' Seems to have been something of a whirlwind courtship if the ODNB's date is correct. All the best, Bob. Radavenport (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well researched. Adjust accordingly, please. Also good to know where L. S.'s Dad came from, if you can squeeze that in. Best, Bmcln1 (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching my ambiguous sentence about "Evelina" as a Bildungsroman and for keeping in what I was trying to say.

Dlaitinen (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kitten. I'm glad you put it in. Bildungsroman says a lot here. It's one of my favourite novels of all time, by the way! Very funny, although a bit cruel in parts. Best, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will be happy to note that I have rewritten the sentence about the Methodist Education Committee and inserted it into a more appropriate place in the article. Though I have to say, I think that your decision to reinstate a tangential and poorly-written piece of text, without even attempting to fix it or move it to another section, is frankly perplexing. This 'Education Committee' is of barley any significance, but I've kept it in the article to appease other editors! --Hazhk^Talk 21:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick Google and it seems Cecil Day-Lewis' father was Frank Cecil Day-Lewis, former clergy man at Edwinstowe. [1], [2]. Not much of a connection, but I was intrigued!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging that up, anyway. Shame really, as the list is rather short. I did "in Edwinstowe" and "at Edwinstowe" searches on Wikipedia, but could only come up with one more name. Ah well. Are you a Nottinghamite too? Cordially, Brian. Bmcln1 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield. I suspect some of the businesses listed in the Edwinstowe article may have closed, but not been thataway for some years. The last time was to purchase some ebay crockery, from a house, part of an estate built by Barratts, on the site of a former school. rgds, Steve.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was brought up off the Hucknall Road in Nottingham and at Elton on the Hill on the main road to Grantham.Bmcln1 (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for A great improvement, Wuerzele, reads much better now. Well done., blush... And this from a native speaker. it more than makes up for those comments I get to discredit my English or maybe to discredit me...

I was cautious editing the lede, actually would have liked to remove more. it read like a mini biography instead of mentioning /distilling the features that distinguish him.

Did you see that I added a personal life section? you think its ok? I know/knew next to nothing about Wilkie before landing on the page, I admit to you, Englishman in Hungary. (I am curious.)

As I say on my userpage, I edit pages when I know more, and all I knew was that the man is the grandfather of detective novels and a social critic (which seems to be a hallmark of all great detective novel writers, think Mandell etc ). He also criticized the institution of marriage, and lived it, pioneered common-law ... what, can you say common-law relationships? so that's what I put in. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC

Well, I just read it through and it gave me good information, I thought. I'll come back to you a bit later, I'm playing a stupid Scrabble-like game at present Bmcln1 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've handled the wayward personal life better than the previous editor. No good trying to pretend he was a saint! However, I do think you should read The Moonstone immediately. Three of my teenage private students in Hungary have managed it and loved it. Mu3 man nicht fürchten davon! The butler who tells about half the story, getting it all wrong, is one of the world's great and most charming narrators. I'm afraid the standard of his work went down, especially after the death of his mate Dickens, largely because of his laudanum taking. If you get "hooked" on Collins, Hide and Seek is my second favourite. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find where in the MOS it suggests no space between the asterisk and first word in a list entry, or alternately to add a space. I ask because you have stripped the spaces from some articles, but I know that Wikipedia:AutoEd always adds them, which is what occurred recently with 2016 in literature and others.— TAnthony^Talk 18:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't worry about it. It makes no difference to the look of the page but any economy in file size helps customers with slow internet. Bmcln1 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a piece of computing trivia from the history of Kenilworth for the reason "semi-advertising of non-notable firm". It cannot be advertising if the company mentioned is no longer in business. This item has a reference: a pdf of a scan of the instructions to build a "Kenilworth Computer". There is no other similar item so it shows another aspect of the town's life in the late '70s / early '80s and links it with the area, as the Nascom computer was developed on a Warwick industrial estate. Xhyljen (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. Sorry Bmcln1 (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Maria De Fleury, Bmcln1!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Interesting topic for an article! A lot of her books are on Google Books so I've added citations and direct links. I think there may have been a mistake with Falsehood Examined as the title page credits this to her, so changed this and listed a few more books in this sequence. Also, would "Maria de Fleury" be better? That's what Ripley uses, only writing "De Fleury" at the start of a sentence when a capital is needed anyway.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi Bmcln1, hope you're well—to answer the question in your edit summary, no, I don't intend to systematically go through those hundreds of pages, I just happened to see that one so I made the change. I don't understand what seemed to be a question directed at me about refugees, please clarify. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I find that the question of multiple national affiliations is hardest to solve with refugees. This "x-born" business really arose out such cases. I quite understand you not wanting to go through all the pages. However, I'm still adding to them fairly regularly, so if there is a change or changes that you feel should be made I can do them as I go, over a period of a year or so. So please say what comes to mind. I don't have strong views, simply a wish to see the lists take a standard shape, which will make them more comfortable for people to consult. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, thanks for writing back, I'm glad to have got a friendly reply to what on reflection seems a rather rude message from me–sorry about that. Far be it from me to tell you what to do but I personally dislike seeing people defined arbitrarily in my view by place of birth, as if jus soli applied unconditionally at all places at all times; the previously quoted WP:OPENPARA works quite well for me. When in doubt it is an option to leave out any opening demonym at all and explain the situation another way. Anyway, as I say that's just me–I'd personally appreciate if you'd take that into account but do as you see fit. Hope you have a nice evening and thanks again. All the best, —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your plain-English edits to this article, which I have further copyedited. I elected to restore the consistent use of British English in view of the subject's Anglo-Irish heritage, and the fact that all the references are to British publications. (I removed the defunct link to a blog item entitled "An American Writer in Tuscany" for the same reasons.) Regards, Bjenks (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too for your attention to the page. I think it now reads very well. I'm fine with the UK orthography, if nobody else complains. I must say that her War in Val d'Orcia was a very vivid and informative experience, taught me a lot about what life was like in Italy in that dreadful period. With best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the reference to a school drama group shouldn't be there but I've already removed it & had it put back so could suffer from 3RR.— Rod ^talk 11:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Keep on the good job Ficxitalf2 (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Thanks also for the link to the Teahouse, which seems to be a useful and pleasant place to exchange views. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bmcln1. Iolo Goch - I or G? (some alphabetic consistency needed in the list?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, I'd be very grateful if you could look over the list from that point of view. I can't always distinguish what's a surname and what's not. With best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bardic names are a bit odd. But Iolo is a diminutive of Iorwerth, and so can typically be seen as a forename, I think. I'll have a quick trawl. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is another Iolo on the list somewhere.Bmcln1 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's correctly placed. But that is his real name! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Teblick. Bmcln1, thanks for creating Virginia Graham (English writer)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Your citations should be more detailed. Using citation templates will help to provide more information (such as page number, title, and year of publication). Some of your citations contain some of these items, but more details would make the overall list better.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie, thanks for your comments. I'll revisit the cited pages in a few days and see what extra details I can get extract from them. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added reference information for Virginia Graham (English writer). Is that what you had in mind? Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing spaces from the infoboxes - They're there to help editors and newbies .... and I've already explained this before - If you disagree with them then get consensus for them to be removed otherwise pack it in and leave me be, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 23:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, you have been busy. Reverting 34 posts is quite an achievement. If you'd like a discussion, please start one. Where should it be? Bmcln1 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply reverting per WP:BRD, The whole purpose of having the infobox options aligned is so that editors can edit them more easily and it makes the infobox more tidy for those who want to edit here,

Annoyingly nothing at MOS mentions the Infobox spacing however I did find Help:Infobox#Editing_the_target_article as well as 4 random infoboxes (Template:Infobox book, Template:Infobox pier, Template:Infobox bridge, Template:Infobox golfer) all of which have this set up so ::I'd say consensus was made somewhere to have articles like this otherwise they wouldn't all have this set up (in all fairness someone could've gone through this page and changed them all without discussion however consider there's in excess of over 1,500 infoboxes here I'd say that probably never happened),

So discussion probably would've happened I just can't find where or when,

Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep an eye out for your posts and not reverse them, anyway, as you request. I'm afraid my Watchlist has got a bit out of hand, which means I grudge the time for discussions. I'm keen on uniformity, but on the pages as the reader sees them. That helps them. In this case both our solutions end up looking just the same, so perhaps a discussion is unnecessary. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea not to remove them from any article as in all honestly I'd hate for you to remove them just for me to come along and add them back without even realising you removed them in the first place,

Agreed, Unfortunately I have nearly 23,000 pages etc watchlisted so keeping track of discussions isn't the easiest of missions here lol,

Anyway I'd forgot to say but I apologise for reverting you this morning - Looking back I should've discussed first instead of reverting and then discussing,

Anyway thanks for discussing it as well as for remaining calm/civil (Not the easiest of things to do when you've just been reverted 34 times!),

Anyway thanks again & Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo, not an intentional instance of vandalism. Just felt I'd clarify, since vandalism has never been, nor ever will be, my intention. Packer1028 (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry. I'm afraid you were surrounded by vandals and I mistook you. Best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find the book most entertaining, by the way. Bmcln1 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not undo people's good work by revising legitimate additions which have been clearly and accurately referenced. I fail to see how the diarist Anne Chalmers needs to have an entire page dedicated to her and why her name cannot simply be in a list of documented diarists. If for some bizarre reason you feel this is not justified may I suggest you open the mater for discussion before acting destructively. Tad102 (talk) Tad102 (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're annoyed. Nothing wrong with your intentions, but to add AC before she has a page is not standard Wikipedia practice. It's doing things in the wrong order. First add her to redlink lists on some WikiProjects. Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_writers/Missing_articles. There are other, similar WikiProjects as well, which you will find. This page also tells you of some WikiData lists she can join. Then write her a page. It need only be a "stub", with birth date and publications, for example, with the references you found - it will expand in time. Then add her to lists. Look at other lists such as "List of English writers" or "List of sculptors" or "List of Nottingham people" and you will find they don't include redlinks. They're intended to point people to pages, not potential pages. I hope that explains. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bmcln1! Just to let you know the link I added to Felicity Heal from 1577 in literature should be appearing as a blue link. Perhaps you need to purge the page if it's still appearing as a red link? I do like to add red links to create redirects (its the easiest way I find) which is what I did in this case. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing her a page. Sorry I didn't spot that the redlink had gone blue. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. And thanks for the thank you! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies and thank you for rolling back the edits I made earlier on Elizabeth Barrett Browning. They weren't made by me and I've since secured my account. Cheers, Acalycine (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it only took a second. Poor you. What a mess. Glad it's sorted. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a couple of months into researching Greenaway, I wrote and brought Edmund Evans to FA status, and when, after a lengthy absence I begin to work on the article, making a few preliminary edits, I get wholesale reverted, [3]. I won't edit war, I won't fight about it. She deserves a better article. I wanted to provide that. I've changed my mind. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with your research or information, but you mustn't eliminate references and you must add references when you put new information into an article. What YOU did, unfortunately, was wholesale reversion. I see that you have information to include and I leave you to do that. Having done it, it will be time for you to look at the lead again. It should present her in a couple of sentences, not tell her life story. Don't forget that Wikipedia editors have no opinions. If you want to praise her, find a quote and reference it. I don't get involved in wars either, so you're on your own now. Bmcln1 (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi, given the opinion you expressed, maybe you could consider casting a vote or explaining your opinion here talk:enclosure#Requested move 23 September 2017 .. my view is that it's far too hazardous to have enclosure being such a specific article when it's such a broad wordMfortyoneA (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just to clarify: I've been replacing existing instances of enclosure with enclosure (legal) - I'd guess it's probably better to keep enclosure(legal) pointing at the same material (it's only where it was clearly mis-targeted that I replaced with something else like enclosure(archaeology) - i think i should revert this, and maybe if the move of enclosure ever happens then we can reconsider?

MfortyoneA (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not too keen on the idea of a dispute about this. I think you had better do what you see as best, having taken a deep breath, so to speak. With the English village pages, I think you should allow editors to cross-reference "enclosure" to the page they think most helpful to the reader. I feel that the legal process of enclosure, as explained on the page Inclosure Acts, is what will enlighten them or remind them most quickly of what enclosure entailed at that time and in that place, and even who was locally to blame. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't worry too much about links you have already given. At worst, they'll show up as redlinks for a while. Time is short and Wikipedia is huge. We must get back to work. What fields do you normally work in? Bmcln1 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bmcln1, I dropped a note on the Margaret Oliphant talk page about her date of death. Any idea how we resolve this? I'm unsure as to who to discuss it with, but since you edited the page recently I thought I'd see what you think. — Hebrides (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hebrides, well spotted. Your source looks convincing to me and I've changed the date accordingly. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.25% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for December: Seasonal celebrations First ladies Go local #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining up so quickly. If you run into any problems, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will, and thank you.Bmcln1 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. I've moved your comment to my talkpage. I don't know which article you were referring to, but in any case, I didn't take umbrage at your alacritous editing. On the contrary, I'm usually delighted to find someone interested in something as obscure as whatever it was I was working on at that moment. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am lost with the page and the highest point. Sorry I misunderstood your edit summary . The page needs a massive overhaul. Far too few references and too much localism. It’s not worth me trying to sort out where is higher or working out where it is. I do not owe Hucknall anything. Red Jay (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a local either. Best let the locals do it, then. Good night Bmcln1 (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a note of caution. I saw in the list of Notable people in the article on Atcham a number of people who were given as born at Atcham. I have checked the respective articles and find no citation. Please note that Atcham was the name of the births registration district covering the Shrewsbury town and hinterland area until later in the 20th century. It would be helpful if a citation were given so that they could be checked. I would not put up in this article unless I had seen evidence they had lived in Atcham parish or were or resident families in that parish. (I some time ago had to correct the ODNB for giving Sir Anthony Nutting an Atcham birthplace when I noticed the precise address was named as a nursing home that was actually in the centre of Shrewsbury. They accepted my evidence.)Cloptonson (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I've added a couple of leads and crossed out Marjorie Chibnall as ODNB gives her a different birth place and Tatham-Warter and Lees Mayall as I can't confirm that they were born in Atcham. The link for Dick Sale is to "Who Was Who", which I can't access without a subscription, so I've left him for now Bmcln1 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove Yuasa Yoshiko and Lydia Zimmermann from the list (here) on purpose or was it a mistake? (Please answer on this page and not on my talkpage. Thank You). -- -- -- 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them has done much non-fiction writing, according to their pages. Not the right list for them. Bmcln1 (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Next time, please explain in edit summary. -- -- -- 23:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Sorry. Cheers. Bmcln1 (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Anna Harriett Drury, note that links to unverified data on Wikisource are unreliable per WP:CIRCULAR. More coverage in reliable, secondary sources is desirable to firmly demonstrate notability: Wikisource has lower inclusion standards than Wikipedia. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Margaret Leonora Eyles, Bmcln1!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An interesting article.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit surprised by this as I've been editing various London pub articles and don't remember seeing any of them italicising. Is this in the MOS somewhere? The only physical objects I can see explicitly mentioned in MOS:ITALICS are "vessels" - ships, aircraft, spacecraft and trains. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen both italicized and non-italicized pub names all over the UK English side of Wikipedia, but personally prefer italicized, as pubs are an important part of English/Scots/Irish culture. I doubt if there is a good reason for doing it in US English. However, I think we should avoid changing back and forth, and still more, a mixture of italic and non-italic pubs in the same article. Inconsistency of spelling and formatting sheds doubt on us, which may subconsciously extend to what we are saying. As you say, there seems to be a stronger consensus behind ship names, etc. Bmcln1 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bmcln1,

I see that my edit to "The Notting Hill Mystery" was reversed and the reversal was attributed to you. I am unclear as to why this has happened; perhaps it was not intentional.

The original text (presented here without the reference link for clarity) reads: "A number of critics, including Julian Symons, a crime writer and poet, They believe it ..."

In English, the pronoun "they" should not capitalized unless it begins a sentence or is found in a quoted source, at which point the wording should be annotated to include "... They [sic] ... " to indicate this is the original format.

My revision changed the sentence by removing the unnecessary and incorrectly spelled pronoun "They." My revised version was: "A number of critics, including Julian Symons, a crime writer and poet, believe it ..." Thus, my revised sentence (without the Julian Symons reference) means, "A number of critics believe ..." which is correct.

In looking at this after the reversal, I realize the original sentence was unwieldily and confusing. For clarity, with my latest edit I surrounded the Julian Symons clause with hyphens and removed the duplicative, redundant link reference (the sentence only needs one link to the reference). If the reversal was indeed your intention, and you still believe the revisions are incorrect, I would appreciate understanding your thinking.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwjwj (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All now well, I think. Comment on page. Bmcln1 (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry to bother you. I tagged the claim about St Davids being the de facto ecclesiastical capital of Wales because the whole sentence seemed a bit of a non sequitur. I don't want to put the tag straight back but is it definitely the case that the seat of the Archbishop of Wales is St Davids? It's just St Davids has its own Bishop and I can't find the claim in that article. If it's true, I wonder if it needs to be inserted in the Archbishop of Wales article too. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to this. I look into it further, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right and I'll get rid of the sentence altogether. The seat of the archbish is the seat of the bish who currently holds the archbish position, at present Bishop of Monmouth. Best, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; I have not reverted your edit on Huntingdon railway station as I have a foot in both camps. Discussion is here. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look. Best wishes Bmcln1 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with Her lives have included those of Robert Graves and Mary Shelley? Did you mean to say that her works include biographies on these two people? -- -- -- 22:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. I'm afraid I've forgotten who we were talking about. Bmcln1 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Seymour. I provided a link in the heading above. Sorry for not being clear enough. Regards, -- -- -- 21:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've made a change, but if you can think of something better, feel free. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help add early life Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. 125.214.49.215 (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not my field.Bmcln1 (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sprite96 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention, which I fully understand. I don't find the reasons for making the deletions coherent. My proposal of moving to Talk was refused twice. I think it's best if I drop the page from my list for a year and see how it goes. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, your contribution to Wikipedia and your response to this matter both do you credit. Thank you for receiving the advice in the spirit in which it was offered, and for your reasoned and mature approach to the situation. Best wishes and happy editing, Sprite96 (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that Williams's is more common than Williams' in UK English. I myself tend to use the Williams' form - partly because I think doubling the s (especially in a piece where the issue arises on a number of occasions) looks more cluttered, and sounds rather unattractive. The self confessed 'grammar geek' Mark Nicholl says : " While we’re on the subject of apostrophes, what about if you are talking about an object belonging to Mr Jones. Should it be Mr Jones’s or Mr Jones’? It depends on who I am writing or editing for because they are both correct. They’re just alternative forms ..." Maybe Wikipedia should have a house policy ? I do not feel sufficiently strongly to pursue the point in this case ! Best wishes - Alan Griffiths Gwedi elwch (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you think best, then, so long as you're consistent within an article: one or the other, although local usage of proper names is a puzzle sometimes: St James's Park in London and St James' Park in Newcastle. However, straight apostrophes, not curly, are used throughout Wikipedia. So "Jones's" or "Jones'", not "Jones’s" or "Jones’". Best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brian, I am grateful that you find my entry for Thomas Medwin so interesting as you have provided numerous grammatical corrections over several years. I realise that this is a democratic forum and I don't own the article but some of the changes that you have made are unnecessary. I am a Wikipedian with a history degree and a published writer with numerous articles over many years. Whilst my written use of English is not perfect I take great care to write a cogent, grammatically correct sentence. Please could you refrain from changing the entry unnecessarily. Perhaps you could leave the article be unless you have some new information.Thank you sir. (Dorkinglad (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Right-oh, sorry to have bothered you. I'll leave it be. Bmcln1 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you need to fix the dashes, but you need to realize that when you just do a global search you break file links. If you look at 1860 in literature you will see there is now a broken file because you are just doing a global search on the page without any regard for files. If you are going to change a file name in your search, you need to rename the file. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I mended the one in 1860 in literature. Bmcln1 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nice work on Leonora Eyles. i would encourage you to incorporate infoboxes in your work (which are an on ramp for wikidata) see also Template:Infobox writer. cheers Prose-proem (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind remark, Pp. I'll look up the template you mention. Best, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the consensus generated by the community in 2009 not to link dates unless in strictly chronological articles, like 2018. Tony (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on the 2018 in literature Talk page, please.Bmcln1 (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why you did it, but I reverted it because it did mess up the page.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kibworth&diff=864680945&oldid=864602649

-- TomK32 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo. Fixed it now. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's Bmcln1 for the very helpful corrections, grammar etc. - starting this article from afresh has taken some time but your help in making it perfect is gratefully received! D.J.A (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I did the right thing, then! I still think the refs need a bit of work (ref names, etc.) Bmcln1 (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the trouble to improve the article! Amitchell125 (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bmcln1

Hope you don't mind but I've emboldened the leisure/sports categories you recently added to make them stand out. If you don't like it, just reverse - I won't take offence!

I've managed to get references for most of the "citation required" tags but still short of a couple or so which I've highlighted on the Biggleswade Talk page.

Biggleswade is my home town. I haven't lived there for a long time but still visit close relatives in the town. When I first saw the Biggleswade page I was disappointed to find the "This article has multiple issues" tag so decided to do something about it. I think we may be near to justifying its removal - what do you think?

Rupples (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wondering about bolding them. Good idea. I'm much enjoying your expansion of Biggleswade. It's turning into a very good page, I think. With best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian

Great spot "Sandy Times" - lol!

Biggleswade Chronicle and Sandy Times is actually listed as such on the British Newspaper Archive website list of issues held. However, I checked it out by downloading a page from January 1898 and the masthead reads: Biggleswade Chronicle and in much smaller capital letters underneath Sandy, Potton and Shefford Times I've included the hyphen as I can't think of a better way to set it out. The hyphen isn't actually in the masthead though.

Cheers - and thanks for all your edits and interest in Biggleswade.

Terry aka Rupples (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I never! I would never have guessed it! Well done with your research, then. Of course, now I come to think of it there is a place called Sandy, on the Great North Road as was. Bmcln1 (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bmcln1.

I see you've reverted an edit of mine on the Great Yarmouth article, when I rejected some pending change edits from an IP user. The edits had added the text "Great Yarmouth is also the home of internet celebrity “dudeyrhino” mostly known for being on the podcast “Jaackmaates Happy Hour Podcast” and being bought to fame by Jaackmaate" into the article four times, three in the lede section and once in the Population section of the infobox. Your reversion has re-inserted this text into the article. I don't want to get into an edit war with you about this but I really don't see that having this information in the article is a good thing. You've been editing for a long time and do a lot of good work, and I'm wondering if you really intended to reinstate these IP edits, or if something has gone wrong somewhere. Cheers Neiltonks (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neil, no, rushing/carelessness. I must have mistaken your correction for the insertion. Sorry. Go right ahead. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian

Would you please take a look at my suggestion on the Talk:Biggleswade page and let me know your thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

Terry Rupples (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Brian. Yes. I think the key thing is who will look at the Biggleswade page and for what purpose.

One of the things that struck me upon reading the page was that cars were made in the town, albeit not for that long. I had no idea! This got me thinking about what other products were once made there - and I am surprised by the range. I've taken a look at other town's Wikipedia pages and usually there is little or no detail on past and present businesses. For example, the Bedford and Hitchin pages currently mention not a single named business! I'm wondering why - any ideas? You are right about the decline of manufacturing. Manufacturing was an important part of Biggleswade's economy from about 1930 to 1990. Jordans Cereals is I believe the only manufacturer remaining.

Warm regards.

Terry Rupples (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Not sure what to say. Perhaps industry was less important there? Perhaps nobody has lit upon reliable sources? Bmcln1 (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good to have the products that have been made in Biggleswade over the decades and centuries, but perhaps without names and addresses, just the product and the rough dates, do you think? E. g. "steam knitting machines, 1790s" or whatever. Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After due consideration I'm not proceeding with the table format for goods made in Biggleswade. Wikipedia style guidelines definitely prefer narrative to lists and tables.

It seems to me that there is a bias against using names of businesses in the places articles on Wikipedia. (Perhaps it is seen as advertising or Wiki editors just don't have the sources.) I tend to disagree - but it looks like I'm in a minority (of one? - lol!). I think adding names and locations adds "concrete" to the text. Without so doing, statements are more generalised and difficult to substantiate through sources. Yes - to many readers the names will not mean a great deal; but they will to older current/previous residents of the town who worked in the businesses mentioned and may be interested to know when their former employer's business closed and what became of the site. I've named some of the main ones but don't plan on adding further as I wouldn't want it to look like a directory!

On a separate point, I'm taking onboard you suggestion to "chip away" at the text by removing superfluous words in order to make passages flow better. It's surprisingly time consuming. I may have read a paragraph half a dozen times and see nothing wrong and then on the 7th reading realise it can be better worded! An example is the sentences in the leader on the King's Reach development. I used "begun" but it didn't look quite right. I searched the internet for usage examples and they said it must have a "helping" verb as in "has begun". I finally found a source https://dictionary.cambridge.org/example/english/begun which about half way down showed the use of "begun" with commas!

Cheers!

Terry Rupples (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Terry, yes, I've noticed you chipping away quite cleverly! I correct my own English as well. Perhaps you should put in the company names you feel are or were important to Biggleswade and see whether anyone objects. There's quite a lot of latitude in Wikipedia style. I suppose there is also an aesthetic reason to minimize tables – I hadn't thought of that. My only point was that lists and texts are quicker to change if need be. Keep up the good work! Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian - should you be interested, take a look at the link I've added to the Flickr photographic album at the bottom of the Biggleswade page. The photographer has done a nice job. Wikipedia's aversion to external links and their suggested placing under the references section likely mean very few readers will get that far down the page! Terry Rupples (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian

Following your addition of Mary Tealby to the Notable residents list I took a look at the rest of the list to see whether the advised “notability” criteria is being met. I've made a couple of suggested deletions on the Talk:Biggleswade page and would welcome your comments.

Thanks in advance. Terry Rupples (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Terry. I had to cheat slightly to get Mary on, but she was such a good person... I'll look at your two in a sec. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Brian[reply]

Richard Walker (angler) sounds a nice guy too. I'm glad you found a bit extra about him. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian

I went through each of the 22 major Nottinghamshire settlements. Only six had a separate Governance or Politics section. Surprisingly, Hucknall, Sutton-in-Ashfield and Worksop had basically zilch! Maybe editors rely on the infobox and generally don't see the section as that important. However Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements lists Governance as one of its top five primary sections and is perhaps implying that all places should have one. I'd not heard of Bingham but it does sound an intriguing town what with all the swingers in Sandpiper Close - lol!

Woodbridge has a nice, succinct Governance section but maybe the wards should be named? Altrincham though somewhat larger has much more on the history of the governing authorities. Compare with Saxmundham! Southwold sums up the recent and current situation nicely but also has little on the historical side.

Terry Rupples (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bingham is a great place on a Thursday (market day), but otherwise dull as ditch water. Hardly worth a visit! The Hucknall page I've tried to contribute to from time to time, but it's hard work. I don't remember the Sutton or Worksop pages. I agree, a word in an infobox is inadequate. Bmcln1 (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian,

The Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements recommends prose instead of a list for this section, (maybe to avoid vandalism by the easy adding of names?) and so I've had a go for Biggleswade. I've put the births in the opening paragraph, followed by past and current residents and given Mary Tealby a para. of her own.

Perhaps, you would take a look, let me know what you think and tweak if necessary.

Thanks. Rupples (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I far prefer a list form for Notable People if there are more than three. The names can then be spotted straight away, locals are gratified to see a good few for their town, and may find other names to add (not all vandals, you know!). A list form may encourage school students to choose notables for school projects, for example, especially if listed chronologically: "Biggleswade poets of the 19th century", down the library and away we go. Bound to get an A! I prefer a sentence form where there's something to say; any localized information on the person can go in, although they have their own pages, of course. Anyway, you'll find plenty of both forms, list and prose, so it's up to you. Best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my error re the county on this article - I overlooked the fact that this one station on the line from Nottingham to Grantham is in Leicestershire! Neiltonks (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easier for me, I could see bits of Leicestershire and Lincolnshire from my Elton, Nottinghamshire, bedroom window as a boy. I think these short descriptions are most helpful. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bmcln1. What is your justification in classing Robyn Archer as a poet here? Are we to regard all songs as equivalent to poems (as the Nobel people seemed to do when they honoured Bob Dylan)? Or did Archer publish some conventional verse that has escaped my notice? Regards, Bjenks (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It called him that on his page, I think. Cross him off if you like. Bmcln1 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nup, she's a highly talented singer and creative director, but not known as a poet. OK, I'll fix. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to the newly re-written Wymondham article. I am happy to see the prose being tightened up. I have re-placed the History subtitle however as I think the opening three paragraphs act as a good lead section that follows the Manual of Style in giving the "basics in a nutshell" and cultivating "interest in reading on." Both Oldham, on which the new article is modelled, and the Norwich pages (and many others) have longer summary sections which mention key historical facts before the history section proper starts. I also like the idea that Wymondham residents can read the top three paras and get a good potted understanding of their home town.

Thanks again for your contributions and guidance!

Thank you too. I enjoyed your article. I accept the fact that nuts vary in size! Bmcln1 (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bmcln1, since you are evidently a keen spotter of pointless changes I direct your attention to the contributions of Triptropic, whose overriding preoccupation would appear to be, under the cloak of making edits given the label of 'minor style' (disingenuous as this is, as indicated by several editors on this user's talk page), ensuring that in a given individual's article the mother's name precedes that of the father and insertion of 'and her husband' is included, presumably in pursuit of some kind of agenda. That this individual's own 'pointless changes' are in turn undone seems entirely fitting, particularly when- as I have on several occasions noted to be the case- the facts are twisted (attribution of father's business or occupation accidentally given to the mother, etc); this however I acknowledge may not be a matter of interest to you, with which in consideration I see little benefit in pressing the issue. Let it not be said however that even the most minor editors such as myself are not desirous of maintaining the quality of Wikipedia and the contributions of those who have put effort into constructing articles.78.144.71.29 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll look out for such pointless changes in both directions. Hope the pair of you grow up soon. Bmcln1 (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You shall, for the record, find none such undertaken at my hand. At any rate, as long as the matter has been clarified (whether or not it be of import to you) I care not one whit for your attempted insult. As we both have more interesting things to be doing I shan't reply here again, so the floor is yours to make another attempt at some pithy dismissive comment should you wish to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.78.53 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for completing my edit – I was reading from an e-book and didn't know how to do the reference.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I hope I got it right. Bmcln1 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your interest in this article. Unfortunately your edit introduced an error into the article, which then had to be corrected. Please be more careful the next time. Thanks a lot. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was also kind of cheeky and unhelpful. Could you please not do any more stuff like this? The article needs improvement; if you would like to help with this, dig out some more decent sources for criticism of his works. That would be more of a positive help. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kerry Raymond. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mabel Forrest, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I don't see the relevance of the citation to the current bush fires. Copy and paste error? Kerry (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bush-fire cite got in there quite by accident. Doing too many things at once. Bmcln1 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Mold, Flintshire because it was garbled and corrupted the infobox. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tdc42. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Marion Eames, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tdc42 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An improvement, and thank you. Glad you agree with me that hereditary influences are too easily assumed. Valetude (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously upbringing is at least as important. Bmcln1 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to the Jane Sharp bio! I'm a new editor, so I appreciate the formatting corrections! Pthomas4 (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)