User talk:Smalljim/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

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

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

Heyy

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

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

CapitalVia was deleted by User:Yunshui on 22 March after it had been tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, see WP:G11. I had nothing to do with this - you'd do better to ask the people involved.  —SMALLJIM  11:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I think he's referring to User:Muskan1017/sandbox, deleted by me, replied User talk:Muskan1017 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I hope he heeds your message.  —SMALLJIM  09:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Plutella polaris

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

Hi Witty! There's not much there:

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

Good luck with the revival.  —SMALLJIM  09:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, the standard Lepidoptera sub-stub then (other than the wrong stub-tag, anyway. But yeah, we've got a several tens of thousands like that/marginally better/marginally worse lingering about, several tens of thousands equally-blatant stubs that aren't that low on info, a couple thousand borderline-start stubs, and maybe 1500 all in all at start or higher)

Nothing I couldn't figure out myself, and no sources I wouldn't have known how to find, either. Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for the good luck wished! The article is now live. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

---

3RR

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

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

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

Did you not know about the three revert rule? If not then I suggest you quickly comment on the noticeboard to say so and explain that it was an oversight, not to be repeated.  —SMALLJIM  22:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lionheart0317: I'll try one last attempt at explaining how Wikipedia works, though this is repetition of what you've been told several times in different forms. Richardson is a well-respected published author on certain areas of medieval genealogy. He is a reliable source for this subject and neither you not I, as mere Wikipedia editors, are empowered to say that he, or any other acknowledged expert (Weis, Roskell, etc.), is not. Since experts continue to disagree about the facts of Philippa's parentage, our job is to reflect that uncertainty in our article (but only briefly as it is peripheral to the main subject of the article, William Bonville). As mere editors we do not dig so deeply as to challenge the reasons for the experts' opinions – those discussions take place in forums such as soc.genealogy.medieval, WikiTree, etc. By providing new evidence or novel ideas, such forums may in time persuade experts to publish revised views, and it is only then that we can reflect them in our articles (except, perhaps Richardson's own posts on s.g.m - see WP:SPS).

So, unfortunately for you, you cannot discredit a published expert yourself, and you cannot fill an article with masses of irrelevant content. A further misfortune for you is that you have come across me who is prepared to go to quite long lengths to see that Wikipedia's principles are upheld so that it remains a valuable resource. You ask for an amenable solution to this matter and there is one: it is for you to accept how Wikipedia works.  —SMALLJIM  23:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@SMALLJIM, you don't need to lecture me on how Wikipedia works. Your opinion of who YOU believe is a well-respected published author is simply your opinion. If you cared to notice, I have not removed the source citation for Douglas Richardson. Your view of one author's reputation does not make that author infallible or the sole authority on a Wikipedia subject. Nevertheless, I have abided by the third party's opinion on the inclusion of a footnote mentioning the contradictory evidence concerning Philippa's relationship to William, 1st Baron Bonville. Furthermore, I have already pointed out and referenced the errors in Douglas Richardson's works. I'm not discrediting Richardson's works, merely pointing out that competent and well-respected authors in the realm of medieval genealogy have already written about Richardson's errors (this has been discussed at length on the talk page of William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville). It should also be noted that Richardson's own posts on forums like S.G.M are his own self-promotion, to sell his self-published books and to attest to his alleged authority. Any Wikipedian caring to dig deeper into that fact are more than welcome to discover that for themselves on sites like soc.genealogy.medieval, WikiTree, TAG, etc.

So, give me an example of one source or citation that I have contributed to on this subject that wasn't relevant or applicable content? I reject your claim that I have not contributed to the quality of this Wikipedia subject. I also reject your insinuation that I have contributed false information or false facts to this subject.

Finally, retract your 3RR Edit warring noticeboard. I have undid the Richardson edit. If you're such a conscientious editor, why haven't you listed all of the sources that mention Philippa as the aunt, cousin, and niece to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville. If you've contributed so much to the quality of the William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville article, why haven't you included those citations from reliable and well-respected self-published authors yet? Users have access to William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville's talk page to learn the truth for themselves. For the record: I, not you, have contributed more to the value of the William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville article! --Lionheart0317 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You wrote: "@SMALLJIM, you don't need to lecture me on how Wikipedia works."

If you know how Wikipedia works, but refuse to abide by its processes then you are engaging in disruptive editing. Your article edits speak much louder than all the irrelevance and disparagement that you churn out in your talk space edits. (comment amended by author) Why does it matter so much to you that Philippa is accepted as Bonville's daughter?  —SMALLJIM  11:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smalljim, I am more than willing to collaborate with you on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville's page or any other Wikipedia subject for that matter, even if a disagreement exists. Also, hopefully, in a more civil and productive manner. However, with that said and for the sake of argument, please read some of the sources that were recently listed by other editors on William Bonville, 1st Baron Bonville's page. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you would strike out the unwarranted accusations you've made against me, mainly on your talk page. See WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL.  —SMALLJIM  23:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lionheart0317: I note that despite making some attempt to change the comments on your talk page, you didn't take any further action after your edit was reverted because you did not follow the guidance. I ask again if you would kindly strike out your uncivil comments.  —SMALLJIM  22:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smalljim, I am not going to change any comments on my talk page, regardless of what you feel, think, or suspect. And certainly not because of your opinions. Civility doesn't seem to be in your vocabulary. False accusations which you initially started are uncivil! Factual statements are civil! I'm also tired of you polluting up my talk page with your petty dribble. You've created your own perils by your own comments and actions. You've done the damage, now live with the consequences. You neither own Wikipedia nor do you own specific Wikipedia pages, as you perpetuate your administrator abuse. I already see that you are reverting, cutting, pasting, and deleting reliable and verifiable references on other pages dealing with the Bonville and Grenville families. Again, for no reason at all, being compelled and driven by your petty animus as verifiable and reliable sources are already listed. Your simple "tidy up refs" explanation just doesn't cut it, buddy! You might want to read WP:OWN. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Richardson and Bonville

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

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

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

@Smalljim: I'm not surprised at all with your response given your editorial history on Wikipedia. You’re not exactly in the position to critique yourself and provide an objective and unbiased assessment based on civility guidelines. Although, thank you for sharing the procedural actions to take. I don’t necessarily need your guidance; however, I understand why you actually wrote it out. I’m not the first and surely won’t be the last editor you will have a dispute with.

Let’s get something straight. I never said that Douglas Richardson was not a reliable source. He is a reliable source for Wikipedia articles on early colonial American families, New England families, and general articles on American History. Those are the particular fields of Richardson’s expertise. Medieval history is not one of his fields of expertise. This is common knowledge about Richardson’s background. You can simply review his public biography here. For the royal ancestry books he published, the original works were created and researched by others, as exactly stated here: “The books are based on earlier published works by David Faris, Frederick Lewis Weis and others.” Richardson received the rights to the content of those works, where he used it and made changes to the verified lineages based on his own theories. These Richardson theories were inserted into his own versions of Magna Carta Ancestry and Plantagenet Ancestry.

Bottom line, Richardson received much criticism and objections on the SGM blog space for his books and theories, where a vast majority (and almost all) of the original medieval time period content was not researched, developed, or constructed by him. Your time and efforts would be better served pursuing and improving the quality of other articles than constantly challenging the common knowledge facts I just previously wrote to you regarding the American author from Salt Lake City, Utah, Douglas Richardson. I hope this helps. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lionheart0317: Thanks for your comments. Two points:

1. Are you able to live with the three relevant articles as they are now? None of them mentions Richardson directly, and the matter of Philippa's parentage has been reduced to the minimum that I think is appropriate. Yes, I know I'm not the ultimate arbiter on this: I'm looking for appropriate balance and compromise. If you can agree on this point, we can go our separate ways.

2. Regarding your concern about the use of Richardson's works on genealogy (or parts thereof) as references for articles on medieval people, your recourse is to post at WP:RSN. Trying to persuade me cannot help – Richardson's works are already widely cited here: Magna Carta Ancestry (570 articles), Plantagenet Ancesty (192 articles), and for comparison Magna Charta Sureties (37 articles). All totals slightly over-estimated due to false positives. These figures indicate that there is community consensus that his works are reliable enough for us, and if you disagree with that consensus then you will need to persuade the community by using good clear arguments and evidence. There are precedents: discussions about the reliability of various sources for genealogy crop up from time to time – there have been several about Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands and The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (consensus appears to be that they are OK with caveats); and Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages (not acceptable and there's even a template to warn readers). These are websites, of course, but as you point out Richardson's later books are self-published so you may be able to gain some traction.

 —SMALLJIM  12:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Smalljim: Two small points:

1. I never said that the entry stating that Philippa was the sister of Lord Bonville in the 1620 Visitation of the County of Cornwall-Grenville pedigree didn’t exist. Yes, it is a 17th century source; however, its credibility has been in doubt for centuries. Countless experts in medieval history and medieval genealogy have commented as such over the past three centuries, whose claims have been backed up by other contemporary evidence. While some genealogical issues may never be conclusively proven, some can be proven by the proof standard of clear and convincing evidence. This has been the standard that has disproven many assertions in the 1620 Grenville pedigree. One of those errors is the entry concerning Philippa’s relationship to Lord Bonville, which numerous experts in the field of medieval genealogy have attributed to a palaeographical error in the manuscript. New research in the field of medieval genealogy is always being published, so as you know, information in this field is always being updated. With that said, I don't necessarily see any real issues with the articles right now. I'm overwhelmed with the inordinate amount of attention you've given me recently. I'm unworthy of this kind of attention from Wikipedia's most seasoned editor! I do hope one day in the future you'll be willing to part ways.

2. I never tried to persuade you because of your expert opinion. If you cared to read anything I wrote, I stated that Richardson’s Bonville pedigree was in error, not all of the pedigrees he listed in his royal ancestry books. There are of course other pedigrees in Richardson’s volumes that are now considered to be in error, and one can only hope that he will correct those in subsequent publications. As I said previously, Richardson could be viewed as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles on early colonial American families and American History. As Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where “ANYONE” can edit it, it is not necessarily the place for absolute authority or scholarly debate on the exact factual truths in certain disciplines, including medieval genealogy. That is why majority, minority, and fringe views are permissible in articles. I’m sure that’s why Charles Cawley’s works and The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy are used as sources without particular attention to the errors that exist in those two sources. Again, the point here is that any author can publish a new theory on a genealogical matter and be considered a reliable and verifiable source, without regard to the factual truth of what that author is actually asserting, and still end up in a Wikipedia article. If you are of the mindset that Richardson is a top scholar in his field, then please ensure that he is used appropriately in articles pertaining to his exact areas of expertise, which are early colonial New England families and American History. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. The only two RS that have explored the question say she's not his daughter. I'm starting to think that ought to be given greater weight. Richardson has had plenty of opportunity to change his opinion since it was first published in MCS 5th ed. 1999 (or was it in the 4th ed. 1991?), but he hasn't. The rules of this website say that we have to give his opinion much more weight than yours, whether expressed here or in discussion groups.  —SMALLJIM  14:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. Your expert opinion says that Richardson is an expert in medieval genealogy and of the Bonville family? Based on what? What are the two alleged RS's that state she's not the daughter and should be interpreted as fact? Your expert OPINION says that those alleged RS's are accurate and should be considered factually true. We didn't know you were a medieval expert yourself, Smalljim, or whoever you are. Again, you are falsely associating my opinion with the opinion of confirmed experts in the field of medieval genealogy. Please stop your misdirection and false representations of my position. It is the expert opinion of true medieval genealogists of not just earlier times (William Pole, 16/17th century), but of current times (Roskell, Clark, and Rawcliffe of HOP, 20th century), who have stated that she was the daughter of Lord Bonville. So again, NO, it is not my opinion, but the statements of true experts in the field. Sorry, but you should seriously back away, as I now consider this a moot point. Thank you for the exhilarating experience, but other editors including myself, should not have to put up with your opinion as if you are the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on Wikipedia. I am no longer responding to your misrepresentations and antics on this topic any longer. I trust you understand what it means when I say that I'm not responding to your antics any longer. WP:STICK applies! -Lionheart0317 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Leave the three articles as they are now and we don't need to discuss this any further.  —SMALLJIM  15:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Where does your false assumption come from that you're the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on Wikipedia, who can order and boss other editors around? Are you the REAL LIFE, Jimmy Donal Wales, who masquerades around under the names of Smalljim and Smallerjim? I don't want to give away your secret identity, sir, but it's a logical question. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll rephrase: If you leave the three articles as they are now, we don't need to discuss this any further.  —SMALLJIM  16:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Are you the real life Jimmy Donal Wales? --Lionheart0317 (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy, why didn't you ever make any edits for William Bonville, Margaret Grey or the Manor of Bideford pages under your official moniker, Jimbo_Wales? --Lionheart0317 (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, thank you for the prompt answer to my question. What would the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. think about your disingenuous antics masquerading around Wikipedia using sock puppets? Not to mention the optics of your behavior. Wikipedians can read for themselves how you are prone to controversy as you make false statements and then later on try to correct the record. You should resign from your Board memberships ASAP! --Lionheart0317 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Update

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

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

REAL Update

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

---

Margaret Grey

@Smalljim, where do you come off saying such a pretentious comment: "Please don't edit war. We discussed this minor point to death and your later comments, like those around User_talk:Smalljim#Update, now make it hard to take you seriously. If you are serious, you could request another third opinion."

Quite frankly, I don't care who you are or where you come from! Although, you're the one who has stated their national origin and made a joke about it!!! What I do care about is your repetitive attempts to delete reliable, verifiable, and factual edits that I make to any Wikipedia page. Let's discuss your engagement of edit warring over factual statements to Margaret Grey's page. Your cart blanche attitude is what's quite amusing in this situation. If you want to request a third opinion to delete my additions to any notes, the onus is on you. Reverting factual information that I have contributed which conmplies with Wikipedia policy will always be overruled to your personal preferences to a Wikipedia page. Let's get serious here! Why should someone take you seriously when you initiate, engage, and perpetrate edit warring on your own accord and then delete factual notes by an editor you have a personal animus towards? If you want to argue your fringe view regarding Philippa Bonville, please create a page on a seperate forum and do it there.

Deliberately and maliciously deleting appropriate contributions by an editor you dislike by singling them out is not what I call responsible editing. What is your issue with factual statements in notes that include reliable, verifiable, and published sources, other than the fact that I'M the editor who is making them? And oh by the way, those 'notes' are appropriate and not my opinion. They are FACTS! I resent your snide comments and your belittlement of my more than appropriate contributions to Wikipedia. It is you, the self-proclaimed ultimate authority on Wikipedia, not I, who is engaged in edit warring. You can try to intimidate me, try to have me blocked, follow my edits relentlessly, make unsubstantiated claims against me, but any conscientious Wikipedia editor will see the truth in the matter. The contributions that I have made to any Wikipedia page are undisputed historical facts, and not my personal opinion. I'll repeat that, they are not my personal opinion! Unfortunately, I can't say the same for you and your fringe view (although you state neutrality and make it appear that it's a coequal view with the mainstream view and then cite proportionality), where it concerns Philippa Bonville on various Wikipedia pages. I'll say this again, your 30 December 2018 reverts to Margaret Grey and the Manor of Bideford were unnecessary, unwarranted, and completely pointless. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

(Reposted by Lionheart0317 from his talk page) If you read our policy on Disruptive editing you should be able to see how your persistent attempts to add unnecessary information to Margaret Grey and Manor of Bideford matches the characteristics detailed in that policy. I've said several times now: if you're serious about this, request a third opinion. But to be honest, I now think you're just trolling.  —SMALLJIM  20:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. The disruptive editing was first waged by your persistent and repetitive attempts to delete factual additions to Margaret Grey, William Bonville, and Manor of Bideford, which any reasonable user or editor would conclude as being necessary. That again, is your own opinion. Your sole belief of what should be included and not included in any one article (including the previously mentioned), is not the binding policy of Wikipedia. If your belief is that you claim outright ownership and control over these pages (which your continous talk page posts clearing represent), then you are sadly mistaken. Request a third party opinion and we'll see whether any information contributed to any of these pages is either historically false or inaccurate. When you state "our", you should be reminded that you are not speaking as the one and only duly appointed respresentative of Wikipedia or as the final Wikipedia authority for any one particular article. Your persistent and repetitive attempts to delete reliable, verifiable, and factual information to these articles is what's most disturbing. What is unnecessary is your egregious attempts to dismiss and distort necessary facts to these articles. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself. Last month, you edited some different articles – doing more of that would surely be more satisfying than flogging a dead horse, and it would certainly be a more productive use of the time that you generously donate to Wikipedia.  —SMALLJIM  00:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that you do not listen, where you act as though you have some sort of impunity on Wikipedia?! I'll be the first to remind you that this perception is a fallacy. It's no secret that you are violating Wikipedia policy with your constant edit-warring and deletion of factual content to several Wikipedia articles, just because they do not support a particular theory you subscribe to. (this is explained in the section of my talk page regarding your fringe theory). Not to mention your constant Hounding of my edits. I neither want nor require any of your unsolicited advice on any matter. I surely don't have to repeat that, do I? Your time and energies would be far better served on Wikipedia if you simply ceased and desisted with your ridiculous antics and false charges, to include your obsessive deletion of facts I contribute to articles you believe you own. I'm sorry to inform you but you do not own any Wikipedia article, and contrary to "YOUR OPINION", the facts I add to articles are appropriate and necessary. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for help at Roth Capital Partners

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

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

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

Hmm. I was aware of the events at the Roth article, but had decided against editing there. Let me look into this a bit further. Watch this space - I'll reply here.  —SMALLJIM  16:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Quknpnfl: as you've probably seen, I've edited the article to address the unbalanced POV. I used your edit requests as one of the inputs to the process, but haven't responded to them directly. I hope you'll donate a proportion of your fee to the Wikimedia Foundation ;-)  —SMALLJIM  18:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Smalljim. I really appreciate all the work you've put in to improve the Roth Capital article and return it to a more neutral state! At the risk of abusing your generosity, I'd like to point out two final, small suggestions to consider:

• The Orange County Business Journal published a profile on Roth Capital in April 2018, and there is a lot there that could potentially contribute to the article. (One point that comes to mind is that following the legal dispute between Byron Roth and Walter Cruttenden, the two subsequently reestablished their friendship and Roth has since invested in companies founded by Cruttenden.) The source is behind a paywall on the OCBJ site, but it can be accessed here on Roth's website.
• The same OCBJ issue included a review of The China Hustle that criticized the film on several grounds, including for its assertion that Roth executed reverse mergers. Rather, according to the review, Roth "raised capital for the Chinese companies after they'd already gone public in the U.S. through the reverse-merger process. The raises are commonly known as follow-on investments." The source can similarly be accessed here on Roth's website. (The film was also criticized in the Washington Post as being "self-serving" and "a kind of selfish activism" on the part of the short-sellers who are featured in the film.)

If you don't mind, please take a look at these sources and incorporate their contents into the article to the extent you feel is appropriate. Thanks again! Quknpnfl (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That OCBJ profile seems to be rather too cosy to Roth to be a good independent reliable source. I've trimmed one sentence about The China Hustle, but criticism of that documentary belongs in its own article.  —SMALLJIM  12:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the profile paints a favorable picture of Roth, but that doesn't mean the source is not reliable or independent. Also, not that two wrongs make a right, but the OCBJ piece is no more cosy to Roth than the New York Post source used in the article is cosy to Roth's short-selling opponents. (The author of that piece is demonstrably connected to Lemelson and Dan David of the China Hustle.)

Either way, I respect your judgment in this case and remain thankful for your intervention here. Quknpnfl (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Smalljim. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Smalljim, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 21:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I don't think I thanked you for this - so "thanks!" And best wishes for the rest of this year. Just listened to that Thomas recording – it's one of my Christmas treats.  —SMALLJIM  17:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome S. I read it out loud on the 24th each year. To friends, family or just myself, I'm no DT but I think the words are richer when we hear them :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Update on FRINGE

(Moved here by Lionheart0317 from his talk page. There's plenty more in /Archive_12.) Attempts at historical revisionism within Wikipedia are doomed to fail because we keep copies of (almost) all edits. You have attempted above to show by selected quotation that third-opinion-giver User:Serial Number 54129 agrees with you that the 'sister' option is a fringe theory. That lame attempt is easily demolished when one reads the full exchange between me and that editor. In fact, as I pointed out yesterday, nobody here has expressed support for your biased POV. I've suggested to you several times that the reasonable thing to do is to solicit input from other editors ([3], [4], [5]), but it's apparent that despite your bluster you're not prepared to do anything other than whinge at me. Well, if you want to waste your time doing that, I can take it :-P  —SMALLJIM  14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is requested that you post your thesis to your fringe theories or any other here on your own talk page. You are also more than welcome to opine on any other Wikipedia topic on your own talk page. Thank you. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Smalljim. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

——SerialNumber54129 20:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Frankie Davidson

I started an article in userspace on Australian performer Frankie Davidson and was warned to contact you first as you deleted an article of that name. Of course I have no way of knowing what the article was about, and as you're semi?-retired I'll boldly continue and publish. Doug butler (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Your decision to publish was a good one – the article that I deleted back in 2016 was a one-line piece of vandalism about someone else. Thanks for checking, though.  —SMALLJIM  18:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Frank Matcham

Hi SJ, hope you're well. Can you believe it was almost 2 years ago that you very kindly took the time to stand outside a charity shop, greasy spoon, and a Chinese takeaway in Union St, Torquay, and photograph them for what the locals may have opined to be a rather weird fetish for food and charity shop establishments, but that I know was for the good of one of Torquay's famous sons, Frank Matcham. Just a note to let you know that the picture has helped the Matcham article to appear here and it seems to be doing rather well among the locals, with five (almost) supports and unproblematic source and image reviews (I know, who's ever heard of such a thing!). Anyway, all the best and thanks again. Cassianto^Talk 08:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Cassianto: thanks for letting me know. I'm pleased that my contribution has helped a tiny bit. It's looking good - congratulations!  —SMALLJIM  11:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

High Sheriff of Devon - reliable sources

I know you have some clear ideas about reliable sources, so I was hoping you could give some advice. The article High Sheriff of Devon is full of citations that are less than reliable. If you are interested, I'd like to invite you to comment at: Talk:High_Sheriff_of_Devon#Reliable sources.NHSavage (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I've commented over there.  —SMALLJIM  13:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

editing

I think I have gone wrong here? I am hoping you might be able to edit my page for me - correct some of the factual errors? This is the accurate dates and societies, are you able to do this or do I go about it differently. I don't want flattery or exaggeration, just accuracy. There is little point of having a page if it is wrong. I also thought that the mayor's speech accurately summed up what I had been doing, why did you delete that? Todd Gray

PUBLIC ROLES includes management board, Centre for South Western Historical Studies (1992-2000); council and general editor, Devon & Cornwall Record Society (1993-2011, 2018-2019) and chairman (2012-2018); committee, Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries (1995-); council, Devon Gardens Trust (1996-2000); council, Devon History Society (1993-2003, 2009-); council and chairman of the Devonshire Association (1997-2008); council and chairman of Friends of Devon’s Archives (1998-2013); patron, Friends of Pinhoe Library (2007-); trustee, South West Heritage Trust (2014-2017); chairman, History Section, Devonshire Association (2014-2015); trustee, Kent Kingdon Bequest (2015-); chair, Exeter Heritage Network (2016-), chair & patron, Exeter Literary Festival (2018-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia444 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Magnolia444: reading the article again now I think it's pretty much rubbish, focusing as it does on minor aspects that were current at the time it was written. I'll have a go at rewriting it. The article on the Exeter City Council website https://news.exeter.gov.uk/dr-todd-gray-given-freedom-of-the-city/ looks to be a good source of information, so I'll include that.

Regarding the mayor's speech, there are two problems with its inclusion: firstly in common with other reference works Wikipedia doesn't quote extensively, we rewrite content in our own words instead. Secondly, without a reliable source for the speech, we don't know that it's an accurate transcription of what was said (or, indeed, even if what was said is accurate). It's important for us that readers can check that article content is verifiable.

It's great that you just want accuracy in the article, but I don't suppose it would be a surprise to hear that many people with articles here have other, personal, agendas. That (and its opposite: people disparaging others) are big problems here, hence the strict rules we have about writing biographies (see our policy at Biographies of living persons). So I'll be looking to rewrite to include only appropriate referenced information. The article may end up shorter.

It's the nature of Wikipedia that anyone else can edit what I write, of course, though it is strongly recommended that people refrain from editing any articles with which they are likely to experience a conflict of interest, especially biographies. There's a template that you can put on the article's talk page to ask that an uninvolved editor make requested changes – see Template:request edit.

I hope this helps explain some of Wikipedia's apparently arcane rules. They have developed over a number of years to ensure that the encyclopedia remains a useful resource instead of descending into chaos!  —SMALLJIM  14:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU for doing this - much appreciated as I have been having complaints about the site and told to change it - as if it was my responsibility. Great now that it is accurate. I can see that the Lord Mayor's Speech was long - it was on the council's website and facebook page on that day. I thought it was good in that it was impartial and from ECC but you would know more. I am wondering if we met at a DA event in the methodist hall some 3 years or so ago? If so, I would like to ask your advice on a new website the Exeter Heritage Network is hoping to start up soon - can you offer any advice on that? Thank you again for making the amendments, a relief to me, TG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia444 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to have corrected a few errors in the article. If other changes become necessary, please use the requested changes template like I described above. Regarding a website, you must be confusing me with someone else: you certainly wouldn't want advice from me!  —SMALLJIM  20:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well S. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD - full of interest as ever! Seasonal felicitations to you, and to all the other Wikipedians (not sure I count as one any longer).  —SMALLJIM  09:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert Dillon, 2nd Earl Roscommon

Dear Smalljim. Thank you very much for your corrections on the article Robert Dillon, 2nd Earl Roscommon. I appreciate such corrections very much as my English is 2nd-language and I do make mistakes. I did not know that "thrice" is outdated, thank you again. However, some of your corrections occur inside quotations and seem to come from overzealous activities of your AWB. The General Fixes module of this bot does not always check whether possible problems in the text are within quotations. In the given case the double "]" in "[Accession]]" is my mistake, but surely this should not become a wikilink as it is inside a quotation. The comma in "March, 1625" is not a mistake as it is like this in the source. Please revert or correct these changes. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Helen MacCarty

Dear Smalljim. I just wrote to you above regarding your corrections in the article "Robert Dillon, 2nd Earl Roscommon". I had not seen that you made similar edits in the article Helen MacCarty. The problem here seems to consist exclusively of corrections of the date format inside quotations, several of them. Please revert these erroneous corrections. Sorry to bother you, but if I do not, there will probably be many more of these. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Apologies - I've fixed the problems in those two articles. I do check what AWB is about to do and make many corrections while running it, but these slipped through the net, I'm afraid. Let me know if it's affected any other of your articles.  —SMALLJIM  10:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Smalljim. Thanks for your kind reply and the fixes. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Peamore, Exminster

Hi SmallJim, I've reformatted and adjusted the article to make it more compliant with the MOS for layout, etc. A few references appear to be missing in the latter sections and it probably need expanding with information about the building, the estate, land use and other things. I think I've done as much as I can with it, anyway. Good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks,Bafflegab, for the work. I'll probably make a few more tweaks to it, but you've done a great job.  —SMALLJIM  11:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No probs; you were correct, it needed a good cleanup. Good luck with the article. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 21:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Gidleigh

Thanks for the ping - I had missed watchlisting it. I am getting so tired of fighting the same battle, where articles about places are used to shoehorn in elaborate family genealogies based on simplistic and inaccurate sources. It opens up cans of worms that need not be opened, spreading misinformation that needn't be in the articles to begin with. Medieval genealogy is never as straightforward as simply cracking open a single antiquarian source. Agricolae (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to restrict myself (not entirely successfully) to commenting on Lt's edits while SilkTork is still in discussion with him about his behaviour. I will say though that he should be looking on you as a helpful (if sometimes brusque - and I've been there too!) resource, and not a hindrance. I've replied to your comments at Talk:Gidleigh Castle.  —SMALLJIM  01:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Christopher10006 unblock request

Hi - as blocking admin of Christopher10006 (talk · contribs) (6 years ago), would you have any objection to giving them another chance per WP:ROPE? — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Voice of Clam: thanks for checking with me. I've looked at the recent edits and as long as an unblock is on the basis of that essay I don't have any objection. I've put his talk page on my watchlist to maintain an overview, but won't be watching his edits closely.  —SMALLJIM  13:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The IP

In the spirit of full disclosure, the IP you mentioned was me - trying, and failing, to hold myself to a year-long Wikivacation. Somehow logging in would have meant admitting defeat rather than just suffering a temporary relapse. Agricolae (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That's great of you to admit. It lays to rest a four year old mystery; though to be honest, when I dug it up again I did wonder if it could have been! Can we ascribe all four IP edits made to that RfC to you?  —SMALLJIM  23:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty sure all of the IP edits in that discussion were from the same real-life person, but my memory of it all is imperfect. Agricolae (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Steamed Lobster

As much as the spamming of the Risdon material needs to stop, I am completely exhausted by a throw-down I just had with Lobster over citing Complete Peerage coherently, only just this morning getting them to agree, but not without a lot of acrimony, and I think they are still pretty steamed with me. I cannot stomach another right now (plus I am half-afraid I will lose the ground I just gained if I raise something else immediately). Agricolae (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Actually being a sysop (albeit heavily WP:INVOLVED) I should shoulder the responsibility instead of trying to hive it off to someone else :) I'll put a note on his talk page to refer him to our discussion at Talk:Constable of Chester#Speccot. If he complains about harassment, well, we'll see where that goes.  —SMALLJIM  10:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I did do a sweep and removed the four instances I found, completely on Fitz, Paston and Scoble, partially on Speccot (leaving only the undisputed fact in the that the holding family switched from patronymic to toponymic, not Risdon's reason why, which is not relevant to the manor anyhow). Agricolae (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tracing those. For the record here's a dozen I did back in May.  —SMALLJIM  17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

	Steamed lobster
	Hang in there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That's so kind. Thank you.  —SMALLJIM  21:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

False vandalism report - Warnboro Community Highschool page - that was not me...

So why am I getting repeated messages from you telling me to stop? And when I try to tell you, you remove my comment? What a shitty moderator you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.134.95 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User talk:121.221.134.95. You're complaining about a message that I posted in June 2014.  —SMALLJIM  21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't care when it was, I just got the messages then, and I didn't have this internet then, so you have the wrong the person. Same country, but that's about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.134.95 (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

^ Sir Bedevere from MP&tHG: "What a strange person." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.12.90 (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Denisarona (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Belated thanks from me. And a wish for all the best for 2021 to everyone.  —SMALLJIM  10:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)