Talk:Crown Jeweller - Misplaced Pages

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Royalty Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gemology and Jewelry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crown Jeweller

Hippo43 (talk · contribs) thinks they have found UnSoUrCeD SpEcUlAtIoN and stricken it from this article, which I wrote.

Except it was not unsourced...

Quote from page 153, The Jewel House and the Royal Goldsmiths:

" seems to have been first used as a title by Rundell and Bridge; only two firms have used it, Rundell and Bridge, and Garrards. Apparently the title implies the responsibility for the preparation of the Regalia and Crown Jewels for Coronations, and their maintenance generally. It could, on this basis, have been applied to all the 'Principal' goldsmiths from 1660 to 1782 and probably to the Royal Goldsmiths since Morgan Wolfe in 1540. Since 1782 it would have been held by William Jones 1782-1796, Philip Gilbert 1797-1820, and Rundell, Bridge and Rundell from 1821-1843."

Page 152 states that William Jones was employed by Jefferys & Jones, and Philip Gilbert by Jefferys, Jones and Gilbert. Actually checking the sources next time may be a good idea to save you further embarrassment. Cheers. Firebrace (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I cannot speak on this particular article as I have not been contributing to it but this same user, @Hippo43, is continuing to remove content without attempting to engage with the issue on Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II. I see they have also continued to revert on this article since this talk section was posted. I have briefly looked at archived sections on their talk page and they have been warned of edit warring in the past too. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@JamesLewisBedford01:, you are 100% right. You cannot speak on this particular article. Go stalk someone else. // Hippo43 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Firebrace: Leaving aside your childish and obnoxious comments, the sentence that I removed did not contain a citation, and it is speculation.

The Sitwell passage, which is only a footnote, contains so many qualifiers as to be meaningless in this context - "seems", "apparently", "implies", "could", "probably"... The position did not exist before 1843, so this hypothetical is trivial and pointless. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The use of user contributions and history functions is a normal activity that "can be used in the dispute resolution process" (see WP:HOUND) in particular if you are trying to establish incidents as I was doing in this talk section in raising the possible existence of edit warring. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no dispute resolution process going on with you. Go away. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? You yourself have replied to the dispute I raised on Talk:Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II#Within the realms, reactions to the death has seen discourse about the future of the monarchy and a Republic . Should we include a mention to this in the lead?. The one you have been constantly reverting for three days with no attempt to reach a compromise as I try to reword or explain its justification. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Seriously. You have no interest in this article. This is not the place to discuss another article. Go away. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@JamesLewisBedford01: There is no point arguing. These people have been here since Misplaced Pages was founded and are thus 100% convinced of their own righteousness (and when they know they're wrong they will just move the goalposts to make themselves look right). Firebrace (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Categories: