Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mugginsx (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 13 April 2012 (→Hello and thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 29 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

My sandbox

User:Mugginsx/sandbox

French article - Paul Charles Doherty

Hello Mugginsx,
you are welcome on Wikipédia in French. No problem, you may contribute with the same name on WP in French as in English (I am also Cymbella in the English site !)
I have modified your contribution to the page Paul Charles Doherty because the translation was not good : there were a lot of mistakes with the French ! Maybe I can help you to write good French ? I hope my French is better than my English !.
Kind regards, Cymbella (répondre) - 21 janvier 2010 à 20:44 (CET)

I would like very much to work with you. I have responded on the Doherty discussion page.Mugginsx (d) 22 janvier 2010 à 01:43 (CET)

Bonjour, Cymbella. J'ai ajouté le pseudonyme Vanessa Alexander.

Bonjour Cymbella. La section Biographie est excellente! Vous pouvez traduire la section restante intitulée «éducateur» de l'anglais vers les français ? Vous comprendre beaucoup mieux anglais que je comprends français ?Mugginsx (d) 24 janvier 2010 à 20:44 (CET)

Good evening Mugginsx,
I think the discussion is better here and/or on my discussion page than on Discussion:Paul Charles Doherty, so I move it to here. I can easy read English, but write is more difficult ! I don't understand what you mean with this Son site Web fournit également un podcast de cautionnement pour un débat intéressant sur Alexandre, avec le Dr Doherty et d'autres historiens : I don't found the podcast on the website ? Cymbella (répondre) - 24 janvier 2010 à 21:26 (CET)

Hi Cymbella. Peut-être ceci ne peut pas être fait. Le internet site est-il vous a regardé dans l'anglais ou français?

ENGLISH WEBSITE instructions Clic http://www.paulcdoherty.com. regarder le fond de la page regarde “View the News Archives” Clic regarde “Paul Engages in a Healthy Debate”. Clic chercher la fin de paragraphe il dira « Ici de Clic pour Ecouter » Clic

Merry Christmas

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Let's make this an opportunity to unhate!

The Fæ classy in crisis LGBT ally Barnstar!

Recently there was some anti-gay hate here on wikipedia and you worked to unhate. Because we need to show our overwhelming support of what people hate on to create unhate whenever it shows up. I compel everyone that supports unhate to repost this on their user page or talk page and especially on any page that has been the location of LGBT harassment or ignorance, that way the haters will know the only consequence of their hate will be more gayness and education and community. Congratulations on being an unhater! LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal at Village Pump

I have started a discussion with a vote that you may or may not be interested in. Since you participated in a discussion yesterday which was similar, I am sending you this notice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_for_message_for_new_editors_creating_new_article

I think we could just use Template:New page as opposed to a deletion tag. If we go through and replace a few tags, that may cause a more serious proposal on speedy delete tag use.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the Template:New page and I agree with you but how do we get anyone to listen to us? Mugginsx (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We could bring it up on the articles for deletion talk page. Propose a new section there: 'Viable articles with Deletion tag replaced with New Page tag while in discussion' type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. But, if you set it up please know that I will be unavailable tomorrow morning USA DST. Mugginsx (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Mugginsx. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice Koekjes for you

Buster7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Thank you for bringing the topic of Love and Praise to such a visible arena as Jimbo's page. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to be so NICE, they will even bake themselves. Enjoy! ```Buster Seven Talk 12:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Mayflower people

Instead of ranting to Jimbo, why not talk calmly to me? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Will you listen? You had no right to do that. Do I take the titles off the UK articles? They do not mean much to Americans but I respect them, in fact I helped create many of them. There are Mayflower scholars and high school student and college student and the articles are kept together for access as well as importance.

Can we keep this dicussion in one place - please. You started it at user talk:RHaworth, please continue it there. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to but I am being engaged there as well. This is very unfair to an American. There is a double standard here. Mugginsx (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Muggins, Haworth had every right to do what he did. One of our primary rules with biography articles is that we use the simplest version of a name. Since these guys were the only notables of those names, Haworth just moved the articles to the proper places. This was the simplest sort of routine maintenance edit, and nothing at all remarkable. It's part of what we all are expected to do on a routine basis. We don't gratuitously characterize articles in the article titles; that's why we have categorizations such as . --Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

ORANGEMIKE - I misspoke, it was Mayflower Pilgrim not Mayflower Passenger. Ok, if you say so, but I think it is wrong. I have been here since 2008 and I know what I saw was a Speedy deletion template and that is what I answered. Then he changed it apparently. The hell with it. I will accept the answer but I tell you I still think it would be better for researchers and such if the Mayflower Pilgrims were all grouped together since they are not known by their individual names. I also think it was a fair analogy. Maybe I am wrong about the analogy. Mugginsx (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we've got most of the names cleaned up by now. The next step is to wikify the articles, doing things like putting ship names into italics like this and removing those big fat inappropriate "See also" lists full of terms already linked to in the article. Next is to expand each article from reliable sources, changing the articles to state who these human beings were who climbed into those tiny ships like Mayflower and Speedwell. Was XXX XX a carpenter? Then the article should say, "XXX XX was an English carpenter who was a passenger" etc.; and he should be added to Category:Carpenters as well as to Category:Mayflower passengers. Context is everything; remember that some kid in Kenya may never have heard of the Mayflower or the Pilgrims. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OrangeMike, I and an expert have been working months on some of what was just changed. Pilgrims are their titles. The Mayflower group is differentiated in that way. Do you think this information grows on trees? All the books have the same few references. The Mayflower Society has the best references using old documents, wills, journals, etc. The new books HAVE THE EXACT SAME THING taken from the same sources. What more do you think there is? There are some stubs left to do still yes, but many of them have very little information anywhere and are just NOTABLE because they made that brave first voyage. Half of them dying. Entire families wiped out. As an American, don't you think they were kind of special for that reason alone? I know you do that was rhetorical. I am just exhausted and depressed and discouraged that more Americans don't fight for their heros the way Europeans do. They were Pilgrims and the idea was to make them easier for researchers, students and scholars to find them since they are better know for their deeds than by their name.

Well I guess if someone had to do it I would rather it be you. By the way, I love your outfit. Brings back memories. Thanks, sorry I am just tired. Goodnight and Happy Easter. Mugginsx (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pilgrim" is not a title, it is a description. We don't use descriptive tags like that in article titles unless absolutely necessary for disambiguation (notice that I've left a handful of those alone). It's not a matter of "fighting for them" (although these are not heroes but rather just another batch of illegal immigrants to my Native American kin), but rather of keeping articles consistent across the entire Misplaced Pages project. Like I said, we make the people easier to find by adding them to the relevant category or categories, not by using odd article titles that nobody is likely to look for. (I would think, class-obsessed as English culture of that era was, that the records would include notations like whether a given passenger was a "gentleman", a farmer, a brewer or whatever. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There was only one that was referred to as a gentlemen. I think it was Carver. Will look it up Monday. I respectfully disagree that Pilgrim is not a title. Some organizations believe that only Mayflower passengers were pilgrims, some also say only Mayflower Compact signers were. Others say the early colonist were the Pilgrims. It is lost like so much of our history, unfortunately. So you are Native American. You might enjoy how the first Pilgrims worked alongside the Indians. Too bad it all turned wrong. Used to work with AIM. Do you know who that is? Now I am really going to sleep but thanks and again, Happy Easter, or just Happy Holiday tomorrow. Hope there is some good food where I am going -a buffet - My son is over six feet tall and loves to eat and eat and eat. Good evening.Mugginsx (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads Observation - Just wanted you to know I did not make it up

(Taken from User Jimbo Wales page:) Mugginsx (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I can explain some of it. Someone tagged Talk:William Mullins for deletion as a testpage . Mugginsx created the page with only a full stop on it (by accident I suppose). RHaworth removed the speedy. Incidentally, Mugginsx, you moved Tilley from Edward Tilley, so RHaworth was only reverting your BOLD but unnecessary move. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much Elen. I am not quite sure what you mean about Edward - both names had the titles. It shows that way still on my "favorites bar" but anyway doesn't matter now but thanks for your astute observation.Mugginsx (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

<-- This is you Mugginsx moved page Edward Tilley to Edward Tilley (Mayflower Pilgrim): aligned with many other Mayflower Pilgrim articles. Also, many other Tilly articles will be much easier to find with title. RHaworth reverted the move in this case. He didn't make the move. That's all I was saying. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I changed the page title to Edward Tilley adding the title (Mayflower Pilgrim). I also changed John Tilley at ]. Thanks for finding the "testpage deletion" I never heard of either a test page deletion or a full stop page creation. I will try to find out what both mean and really, thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Testpage thingy was weird. Just wanted you to know you weren't imagining seeing a speedy template somewhere in the mix. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for going the extra step and believing in an editor. That makes me feel very humble. Mugginsx (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OrangeMike

Thanks so much for your wise words. They meant a lot to me. Mugginsx (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, aside from some immoderate accusations here and there, it was clear that your intentions were good. It's just that some of what you wanted to do was in contradiction to how we do things around here, and excessive drama got generated that was detrimental to the project. It is to be hoped, of course, that now we can return to our universal goal of better coverage of our subjects. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but I also respectfully disagree with part of it in that I believe that the Mayflower Pilgrims are a unique, specific group of Americans and therefore are worthy and in need of a title for them to make it easier for researchers and students to find. Their number was few and limited. They mission was the basis of our history. I probably could have gone about stating my case better and without what you call "drama", but that is who I am for better or worse. I will be happy to work with you and any editors toward making better articles about this small group of which their is little known. Mugginsx (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, that's what categories are for. Each of them should be put into Category:Mayflower passengers; then all a student need do is click on the category to find a neatly-presented roster of all those about whom we have articles. I'll try to help a bit on cleanup; but I have about 9,000 articles on my watchlist. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OrangeMike - Pilgrims and Passengers have a different meaning in the context of the Mayflower Pilgrims. Please do not change Pilgrims to Passengers - Some were Separatists, some were not - some were persons fleeing religious persecution and others were passengers coming for other reasons. They are not the same in the context of the Mayflower participants. Mugginsx (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

All the pilgrims were passengers, though. If you feel a need to create a specific subset of the Mayflower passengers for those who were specifically pilgrims, then that's easy enough to do; but such over-categorization may not be of utility. Is there currently a Category: Plymouth Colony Pilgrims? If not, creating and populating that category might actually be of greater utility for what you're trying to do here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No. According to the Mayflower scholar I spoke to and other persons and the books and journals, the Pilgrims (in this context) refer only to those who fled religious persecution under James VI and I. The other category were Passengers who were indentured servants and all others. The term "Pilgrims" was and is used in the religious context. Mugginsx (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so we need the broader category, Mayflower passengers, for everybody who was on the boat except the crew; then a sub-category of that for the Separatists/Pilgrims who were passengers on the Mayflower. But as to the other question: is there currently a broader category for Plymouth Colony Pilgrims? Because if there is, then Category:Pilgrims who were passengers on the Mayflower would be a daughter category of both that and the passenger category. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not know. The problem Mike is that the choice is Mayflower Pilgrim or Mayflower Passenger. As to others who came on the Fortune the next year or other ships, I think there are only a few articles - maybe just one - Robert Cushman (Pilgrim) and that I worked on, haven't checked for others. I think there is a manifest somewhere but there is little known about these people. But there are not in the Mayflower category obviously. I don't know if I am answering your question, hope so. Mugginsx (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently, Category:Immigrants to Plymouth Colony does NOT distinguish between Separatists/Pilgrims and other immigrants to the colony; the only subset of Category:Immigrants to Plymouth Colony is "Mayflower passengers". If you were going to start dividing the sheep from the goats, so to speak, you'd be better off starting with the parent category first. I hope I am making clear that all the Mayflower pilgrims were after all passengers (though not all the passengers were pilgrims), regardless of any peculiar meaning those who specialize in that microcosm may assign to the word "passenger" among themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That category is much too large for the Mayflower persons. There were 101 passengers (not including crew) of which less than one half survived the first winter and/or spring. I believe that the Mayflower persons need their own category. They were the first to succeed. They are even called "The First Comers" by the people in their own time such as those who came after. The "immigrants: that came after - many went to establish other colonies because they did not like being ruled by Pilgrims or Separatists. Mugginsx (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike, I have a splitting headache. I had a fall yesterday (no I was sober ☺ just clumsy) I need to lay down for awhile and I do appreciate all of your advice and help. Just cannot think right now even my eyes hurt - didn't think I hurt myself that bad but today my body is killing me. Thank you again for all of your help and I hope we can figure out something that we both agree on because I would like to work with you. Mugginsx (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

discussion continued on "OrangeMike's talk page

Navbox

To save you having to repeat a long see also list, I have created {{navbox Mayflower}} and implemented it in some articles. I then discovered {{Plymouth pilgrims}} which seems to have never been used. I have merged it into {{navbox Mayflower}}. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks extremely nice. Thank you very much. Mugginsx (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But for goodness sake, use it properly! See this edit. The whole point of a template is that it enables a single change such as this to affect multiple articles. How will that happen if you copy the navbox contents? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I do not understand. I should take William White out of the template that is in his article. What am I doing wrong? I have never attempted a navigation template before. I will try to study it.

The words this edit above and here are a link. Have you followed that link? It leads to what we are call a diff listing. You may find it incomprehensible at first but persevere - diff listings are an extremely useful tool. As to this specific diff listing, it shows that I took out the text of template:navbox Mayflower which you had copied into the article and replaced it with {{navbox Mayflower}}. The latter situation is known as transclusion. Whenever any Misplaced Pages user accesses the page William White (Mayflower passenger) the MediaWiki software picks up the current content of template:navbox Mayflower and copies it automatically into the HTML being delivered to the browser. Do you understand now? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

When the template is used in William White (Mayflower passenger), the name William White appears in bold and not as a link. When the template is used in William Mullins, William White becomes a link and William Mullins appears in bold. This is how templates work. It is totally standard. The software makes this alteration automatically. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Peter Browne was a Mayflower "Pilgrim". The "Pilgrims" are referred to in the religious context - i.e., those who were later called Puritans or Separatist fleeing religious persecution under King James I. The Mayflower Passengers were everyone else. Also Brewster was a "Mayflower Pilgrim". That is the way our Mayflower scholars differentiate them. Mugginsx (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What has that got to do with failing to use a template properly? Are you trying to say that the template should distinguish between pilgrims (small p please) and passengers? I would agree. So why are you telling me? Go and change the template!! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. I was talking about the article titles not the template. Thank you for that and the further information. Mugginsx (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike

Thanks. Made some of the corrections you indicated. After doctor's will work more today if possible. Mugginsx (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Archives

Please explain why you do not want MiszaBot to archive this page. Please note:

• if I try to edit the entire page with my tablet PC, it crashes the machine
• I know disk space is ridiculously cheap these days but it still offends my sense of frugality to have 150K bytes gobbled up by a 150 byte message (especially when there is an editor who uses three edits to achieve what most people achieve in one edit)
• it uses bandwidth for people to view the page - think of people on slow connections
• this recommendation is to archive when a page exceeds 50K bytes
• do you really need to have messages more than two years old permanently visible? They can still be found via Archive 1, etc. and via the article history.

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you but I just do not want the pages archived. I understand it is my choice and from time to time I actually do read it and even delete some of it. Please ask Bot to remove archiving, but thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded my reasons above - please re-read - especially this "official" recommendation. You can almost as easily read stuff in the archive as in this page. I have given you a search query for the archives. I feel so strongly about this that I will not ask the Bot to stop but if you ask it, I shall take no further action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, as you wish. I will defer to your judgment. Mugginsx (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy

Just remember AL is into genealogy.

EoGuy (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am glad but I do not know which editor is Al. Did you see the beautiful Mayflower Template that User:RHaworth made? Who is Al? Mugginsx (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Genealogy, Part Two

geneALogy - you'll never forget how to spell the word again.

EoGuy (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! That is one word I always mispell - but thanks to you No more!!!! ☺ Mugginsx (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention misspelling mispell - but that might have been on purpose, I suppose.

EoGuy (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, however I do love the spell bots!!! Mugginsx (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I should not rub it in but I have noticed the navation of the pigrims. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You two have put a jinx on me. It like taking a test and having the teachers looking over your shoulder. Oh and see you have archived it so I can't even fix it. I knew there was something i didn't like about archiving. Mugginsx (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Whaddya mean "archived it so I can't even fix it"? Rubbisch. User talk:Mugginsx/Archive 2 is just another wiki page. Why cannot you edit like any other? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

More from a teacher looking over your shoulder

Re Talk:Edward Tilley: so has anybody been trying to change your reference styling? Your reference styling is far from perfect so do not be surprised if others improve it. Two important aspects: learn to de-duplicate references using the <ref name="foo"> format, see this edit and do not use naked URIs. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

First I thought I wasn't supposed to change something once it was archvied. Guess I was wrong. Thanks for telling me.

OK, now I used this style and a lot of other people do too on Wiki. http://www.bcgcertification.org/skillbuilders/skbld959.html

So, in other words If you wrote a book I would cite it like this:

1. R. Hayworth. How to cite on Misplaced Pages (Dunhill Pub. 2nd ed. 2012) Chpt. 1, par. 2, pp. 2, 5, 7

Now, of course - all are not as perfect as that but I try to do it in that style. What is wrong with that? It states that Op Cit. and Ibid referencing in Misplaced Pages, though not disallowed, is discouraged. I will have to look up where I found that. I don't like that other styling of referencing that you linked to. I think mine looks neater. Look here: Jean de Venette and here Geoffroi_de_Charny and here Katherine_More. When everyone uses the same style doesn't it look neater to you then all that junk with the wiggly letters before a citation? I have even been admonished by other editors for using the type you refer to because yet "other editors" changed my references to "their" styling of referencing. Not all editors like it. It's not just me. That is why I do not like others to touch it. and naked URIs - what if there is nothing else but naked uri's - A lot of mayflower history is online and I have to cite them. So.... what do you say to that? Mugginsx (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Full reply in due course but in the meantime please answer my question: has anybody been trying to change your reference styling? Reply preferably with links if there have been changes. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please study this edit very carefully. I have mainly addressed two very basic matters. If you have referenced the same document four times, there is simply no point in repeating the reference four times in the References section - using the name="" syntax, the media wiki software allows you to point to one reference from as many places as you wish. Are you seriously telling me that you think it is better to repeat the same reference multiple times? "A lot of mayflower history is online and I have to cite them" - so what? Did I ever say that you should not cite it? Did you actually follow the link to naked URIs that I provided above and from there to Bare URLs? All I am saying is that http://www.plimoth.org/media/pdf/tilley_edward.pdf looks ugly and is uninformative. A genealogical profile of Edward Tilley at plimoth.org looks prettier and tells us more. Again, are you seriously telling me that you think a naked URI is better? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No, yours look much better of course. Thank you.Mugginsx (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You may find it useful to start using the {{cite web}} template - that gets quite annoyed if you try to show a naked URI: RHaworth (2010-03-01). http://rhaworth.com/tenerife/tenex.php?g=te&fmt=v&minth=9&from=291259. Retrieved 2012-04-12. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was successful in copying yours in another article with another name but same basic website, but was unsuccessful in first try with different URIs, will have to study the site you recommended for the rest. Mugginsx (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

HI. I'm sorry to have to raise this, but unfortunately it appears that some of the text you've been adding recently has been a bit too close to the original sources. This has largely been in regard to the Mayflower pilgrims, where you have tended to stick too close to Philbrick in particular. The wording isn't always identical, but it is generally very close, and close enough to be regarded as overly close paraphrasing (there's a good discussion about this at Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing that may help). As an example, in Thomas Weston (merchant adventurer) you wrote:

In the beginning, Weston was a godsend to the Leideners - a man who seemed to be sympathetic to their religious ideas and who claimed to have the funding available to make their wishes into reality.

The source, which you provided, used language that is much same:

In the beginning, Weston was a godsend - a man who seemed to be sympathetic to their religious ideas and who also claimed to have the means to make their cherished dreams a reality. (Philbrick, p20)

You've clearly tried to reword it, but the problem is that the text in your version is overly similar to that provided by Philbrick, which runs into the paraphrasing concern.

Everything is extremely well sourced, so the only problem seem to be with the wording. It is a common issue on Misplaced Pages, and I think part of it stems from our focus on verifiability and no original research, as on the one hand we're saying that you need to only use verifiable sources and that you need to stick very close to them, while on the other you need to reword things sufficiently so that you don't run into any paraphrasing problems. Unfortunately, as Misplaced Pages's content is released under a Creative Commons license, when we add content that isn't compatible with that license we're not just using it, but we are relicensing it, which means that Misplaced Pages's requirements for copyright compliance are higher than what you might find outside of Misplaced Pages.

I've removed what I could, and I tried to rewrite William Mullins - I'll change that back to the version without the close paraphrasing, but I'll try to incorporate any additional changes you made since then - but there are still some problems in other articles. Part of the concern is that removing paragraphs with problems leaves big holes in the text, so sometimes I need to remove text around them as well, which I hope to be able to see returned once the problematic stuff is fixed.

At this stage I don't know if we'll need a CCI - I had hoped to handle the concerns without one, but if we do it is just part of the process, and doesn't reflect on the worth of your work. You've been doing great stuff with expanding this much-needed area, so I'm hoping that we can just address the paraphrasing problems and then build on the work you've been doing. - Bilby (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bilby

I do see what you mean now and thank you for your assistance. I did not think that facts like birth dates and death dates were copyrightable but although I worked as a paralegal my work was certainly NOT in copyright law and I am retired now. I will attempt to educate myself, with your help, on copyright guidelines here and copyright law in general.

I did do a lot of work on these articles and had some scholarly advice along the way as to content. I will be more vigilant in the art of re-phrasing and again I welcome you assistance in that regard.

I did have one question. If I removed Mayflower sources for certain facts which seemed to be copied from out of copyright sources, may I use keep the information without the Mayflower source, or should it still be also be rephrased? For instance, the ""expeditions" you removed are clearly described in the Myles Standish out of copyright source (1856). Also the Bradford diary source I have used was the not in copyright source which is also verbatim in the Mayflower sources.

I hope I explained myself clearly. If not, I apologize but would like to know before I re-write some of this material, especially Philbrick and Mayflower sources.

I do however, wish to maintain my styling of referencing. Misplaced Pages allows it and it is used widespread over Misplaced Pages. I also think it looks neater if done correctly. Will strive to do that.

I will welcome the help you wish to give. Thankyou. Mugginsx (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you RHayworth for splitting the template. I will get on it right away and finish up tomorrow. Thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks

Just wanted you to know that I am working as fast as I can to replace references with actual out of copyright journal of bradford, mentioned in almost every article for births and deaths.

Also am re-phrasing. Also I am watching how expertly you rephrase and trying to change some sentences. Must get the Philbrick book back from the library for some of the references. Will do that tomorrow morning.

I wanted to express my gratitude for all of the good advice and hard work you did to improve the article and to save it from copyright violations.

I will continue to work hard and please contact me if you find anything that needs immediate help and I will stop the work in random articles and go directly to the one you thinks work.

Also left you a note on Talk:Edward Tilley page.

Thank you very, very much. Mugginsx (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I assume you are talking loosely and saying that you will replace text which is copyvio. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with having references that point to in-copyright material. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Bilby already removed copyvio material. I was merely thanking her and letting her know I appreciated it and was re-checking my articles using Philbrick reference she questioned for all other articles. I got the book from the library today as stated. Mugginsx (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange ideas

Please explain what purpose is served by placing {{Talkback|RHaworth}} on user talk:RHaworth or placing {{Talkback|OrangeMike}} on user talk:OrangeMike.

It was you that talked to me on his page. I was merely answering your comments to me on OrangeMike's page and put a talkback template on his page where you talked to me because I assumed you wanted an answer. Mugginsx (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain this edit: in what way does the presence of resolution (music) in the resolve article "cause problems in searching"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I remember is putting Resolved White in there. Cannot explain the comment. Mugginsx (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)