User talk:Ordyg

He hasn't done anything, other than being born into a noble/notable family. Thats why I tagged him with the NN. DesertSky85451 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've untagged the article as NN, and retagged it as linkless, as very little links to it. I also made a few tweaks to make it read more clearly.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of having a POV on the matter. I patrol all new articles and tag them for problems where I see problems. For future reference, you should read WP:AGF. DesertSky85451 18:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this back to Francis Newdegate. Article titles are usually at most common names not at full names. And all the evidence that I am able to muster indicates that his name was Francis Alexander Newdigate Newdegate not Francis Alexander Newdigate-Newdegate. The surname is in all cases treated as "Newdegate" not "Newdigate Newdegate" and certainly not "Newdigate-Newdegate". I realise that these things can get complicated (e.g. John Rivett-Carnac) and that I may be wrong. But please take the time to explain and provide sources before moving the article again. Hesperian 12:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and Welcome at Wikipedia :-). Sorry, I have reverted your changes on the article above. The articles of peerage titles should reflect the history of the respective title, the origin of the several creations (if there exist more than one), the title's background in example a image of its coat of arms, and of course short notices about the more important holders. However the infos you have added, belong to the article of the 1st Earl; they concern more to the individual person than to the title. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 18:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

PS.: I think it may be interesting for you to read Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage ... Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk 18:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

No worries, I was moving your text into Thomas Orde-Powlett, 1st Baron Bolton while Phoe was reverting it. We prefer to keep articles on peerage titles and the individual holders of those titles separate, excepting life titles and maybe titles extinct on the death of the grantee. Choess 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since the link of Thomas Orde-Powlett, 1st Baron Bolton at Baron Bolton was blue , I assumed that an article exists already there. But you have added only a redirect, and so I was wrong. Please excuse that I have not looked. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

No problem, glad to help. May I offer some style tips?

• Years aren't usually wikilinked when they stand alone. However, when you have a date like "26 September" "2004", making two wikilinks (around each of the quoted phrases) allows it to be automagically recognized as a date, and it will appear differently depending on user preferences. (That is, you can view dates in American style, European style, ISO style depending on what you've set in "my preferences".) See the first few sections of WP:DATE for the details.
• Similarly, once you've made a wikilink to, say, County Donegal once in an article, it's generally preferred to leave the rest of the instances of "County Donegal" unlinked, unless you have a long article and the first link can scroll out of sight.
• Be careful with spaces and periods. If you omit the space after ]], the following word will get incorporated into the wikilink.
• We have categories by year for birth and death, so someone born 1569, died 1641 would be in Category:1569 births and Category:1641 deaths.
• For peers and baronets, the bolded opening line includes the full title: Richard Roe, 1st Baron Cockayne or Sir Richard Roe, 3rd Baronet. WP:PEER has the full set of guidelines.

You can always look in the page history of the pages I've cleaned up to get an idea of some of the other style conventions (WP:DASH, sortkeys in categories, and so forth). All that said, please don't let any of this hamper you in adding new entries. I don't want you to feel like you have to read fifty obscure policy pages before contributing. There are always people like me coming around to erect succession boxes and do cleanup and that sort of thing, and I don't really mind. I always enjoy puttering around the fringes of minor nobility and gentry, and I'm very glad to see these articles coming in. Yours, Choess 17:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no problem. How I wrote in the summary, British peers (but not baronets) are generally notable. As author you should not remove a speedy delete tag, however you can add an additional {{hangon}} tag, which will contest the deletion. This will give you time to explain the reasons for the article on its talkpage - in this case you could have referred to Wikipedia:Notability (royalty). Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 19:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to remove some of the "see also" links where they're made redundant by the "succession box" at the bottom of the page. E.g., on Sir Robert Lawley, 5th Baronet, the word "Baronet" in the box at the bottom is linked to Lawley Baronets (which I see you created — thank you). On the other hand, since Francis FitzRoy Newdegate, 3rd Viscount Daventry is related to the Newdigate Baronets but not one of them (and so not linked to them in his succession box), I'm leaving the link in place there.

Also, what sources are you drawing your information from? It's best that you leave a "References" section at the bottom of the page listing the book you looked the person up in, a link to the website describing them, or whatever is relevant. Wikipedia policy is gradually hardening on insisting on references, and it's best to be prepared. Choess 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heja, Category:Baronetcies is meant for baronetcies only, while Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England, Ireland, Great Britain, Nova Scotia or the United Kingdom are special for the baronets itself. I hope I could answer your question. By the way is Chalonor Ogle (admiral), that one who sailed with Sir Francis Bridgeman, 3rd Baronet to the West Indies? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 19:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Thanks for your answer. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Hello. Selby Baronets, an article you recently created, does not properly cite its sources, according to WP:CITE. Please include a full citation for every source used. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Thanks I will either get rid of or fill out the redlink one. I put them in forename order to make them easier for people to search. That reduces the duplication with the bart list which is in precedence order. Regards Motmit 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact - looking at the bluelink Barts they all need a bit of fleshing out as well. Motmit 16:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, if you look at High Sheriff of Cheshire you will see I have found the definitive London Gazette announcements of High Sheriffs back to 1960 (with a few exceptions which are proving particularly stubborn). the announcements all cover Derbyshire as well, so feel free to copy the reference info over and add the relevant names. In theory it shoudl be possible to use this to find all High Sheriffs back tot he start of the Gazette in the 1660s. David Underdown (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's self-interest really. Once I've got as complete a list of appointemtns as possible, I was going to add the appointments to all the relevant articles (creating the missing articles as necessary), so the fact you're likely to do the work for four of them makes my life that bit easier. I've been slightly wary of giving full residence info for the more recent ones because although it's obviously already publically avaialble, listing it in Wikipedia gives it a considerably higher profile. David Underdown (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it easier to hit edit on the Cheshire page, and copy the references direct from there - you haven't got the format quite right for the ones you've tried to do so far. The parameters can be slightly tricky, basically anything from before about 2000 doesn't need the notarchive=yes parameter set. David Underdown (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the notarchive parameter actaully does is control part of the url output by the template. Older issues of the Gazette on the website were put there by scanning in the published Gazette after the fact and the url contains the parameter &type=ArchivedSupplementPage or ArchivedIssuePage, for newer issues the pdf was created from the electronic data directly, and so the url contains just Issue or Supplement David Underdown (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No accessdate is absoutlely necessary, but is I think recommended by the guidlines on sourcing. It helps if a link goes dead to trace the content. As you say it shouldn't be too much of an issue in this case (particulalry using the template) because we should be able to fix changes to the url structure centrally. David Underdown (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bitchfield Tower, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Bitchfield Castle. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Bitchfield Castle and pasted it into Bitchfield Tower. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Russ (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ministeracres to Minsteracres -- in this case, since you were the only contributor to either page, it's not as critical, but it is still best to avoid doing this in future. Thank you. --Russ (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rayment-b is preferable to rayment where appropriate, please. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for disabling that link from the Levett page that went to the wrong Packington. There's a Packington in Staffordshire and one in Warwickshire, and they seem to often get confused. Many thanks.MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You put SJL as High Sheriff of Warks for 1839 but the ref you cited was 1838. Just thought I'd let you know before you use it elsewhere. Bazj (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice additions - the Mundys and Evans have received some attention and now the Poles .... brilliant. Derbyshire project is doing well this week Victuallers (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)... and again... you must be beter at the gazette site than me... I thought I'd shaken it for derbyshire finds. Consider yourself gazetted. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never expected the Sheriff list to ever look so complete. Its an obvious omission from lots of books. Obviously others never got as far as you. Well done.

Oh and Shardlow Hall... any objection if I merge the school with the hall? Victuallers (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was only one 3rd Baronet named Charles in the Lowther family, I've restored this from a redirect to a full article (I wrote it originally) and redirected Sir Charles Lowther, 3rd Baronet, of Swillington to that article. I hope you don't mind. Choess (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just read and enjoyed your Croxall Hall piece. Nice work. I made a few minor changes, like linking to the piece on John Prinsep. Take care and enjoy your New Year. Best,MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for adding the new information. Would you please add a citation to the source where you got the information? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was super! Are you able to add any other references to the article? It is underreferenced and much of it does not satisfy WP:V. Thanks for any help! Happy New Year. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. When there are multiple references to the same book or multipage article, just list the full reference for the book/article at the bottom under "References", but in the text, you write: <ref>Twain, p. 131</ref> See how we do it at, for example, Thespis (opera). -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that if all the information for a paragraph is from one reference, then generally just one citation at the end of the paragraph will do, except that all quotes need to be closely folled by a cite. Check out WP:CITE for more info on citation format. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ordyg -- thanks for the information you've added to Crewe Hall. I'd be grateful if you could provide a full citation for the new material, as I'm currently trying to develop the article towards a Good Article submission and it is critical that all points are fully referenced. It looks like my main reference, the Robinson book, conflated John Offley/Crewe, son of Anne Crewe Offley, with his descendant who became the 1st Baron, and I then misinterpreted the ODNB to come up with the Shuttleworth name. A few minor queries: Do you have any dates for the marriage, which looks to be 17th C not 18th C (as Robinson states)? Do you have dates for the son John Offley, later John Crewe? Also, are you intending to write an article on Madeley Old Manor? -- if not, I'd prefer not to link it. Many thanks for your assistance, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Leke Baronets requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Norbury Manor, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Norbury Hall. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added Thomas Buxton to the list of h sheriffs. A) Brilliant B) Is he not a sheriff of Notts, Derby and the Forests? cheers Victuallers (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You can copy any images from Geograph into Wiki Commons, and then add them to articles - the copyright status of Geograph makes this possible. I've done this to Esholt Old Hall, replacing your reference linking to Geograph. It's quite easy, but if you have any questions about doing it please ask me and I'll try to help. Cheers, PamD (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ordyg. Regarding this edit you made to Gibside in May 2007, I just wanted to ask you if that was your original work, or you copied it from somewhere else. I only ask as I found that text repeated verbatim here which is ostensibly an article published by The Journal in September 2008, so I want to determine if this material had appeared in previous literature, or if the Journal is copying material directly from Wikipedia, as I often use them as sources for other articles and that would be quite worrying if they are. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the Littleton confusion. Sjwells53 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for straightening that out. My error. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Francis Parker Newdigate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per WP:Notability- did nothing of note

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lost houses of Derbyshire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced. notability?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RJFJR (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ordyg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ordyg. For some considerable time I have been trying to locate a portrait, painted in 1822, and bequeathed the following year to Admiral Sir Charles Ogle in perpetuity. I have looked for this in portrait galleries around the world and Yale is currently trying to find it too. I've put ads in papers asking for information and even engaged art detectives to try to find it! On the offchance you might know anything about what happened to this portrait, and more especially its current whereabouts, I would be extremely grateful to you if you could give me some information. It has been suggested to me that it perished in a fire in Hampshire about a hundred years ago, which of course is quite possible. Just knowing what happened would mean I could put this search 'to bed' ! Sorry to trouble you and many thanks. Arbil44 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Arbil44 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]