User talk:Eebahgum/Archive 3

William Waterhouse

Perhaps you look here sometimes. William Waterhouse was moved to (bassoonist) which I don't like, he was so much more than that. You may be interested in a concert in his honour at Wigmore Hall 16 April, - wish I could go. Gervase de Peyer playing, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice note, GW thought as you do. More on the concert. Enjoy real life! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I added Ivor McMahon and Peter Graeme, in case you feel like adding. Where did they study? ... Good new source about the EMI recordings, telling exactly who played what when! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Graeme on the Main page right now (McMahon before), I like it, Tim Brown next, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hardwick House

Thank you for the citation. Didn't mean to be an ogre, but sometimes on wikipedia there's so much added that one has to ask for a source. Your contributions are most welcome. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm glad you created such an article, and happy you're linking them. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Lady Drury's Closet

Hi Eebahgum - I notice that you blanked an article you had started because it "wasn't good enough". Just because a couple of concerns were raised about it doesn't mean that it was no good - the standard way articles are built on Wikipedia is to start with a less-than-perfect article and then either the creator of it or someone else improves it. In this case, the main problem was simply the way the article was cited and is something which should be relatively simple to fix - it certainly is good enough as the start of an article, simply one that needs a little work! Grutness...wha? 07:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Grutness on his point. Some citations would be most helpful. But the tie to the poet John Donne, as well as the obvious work in the panels, makes the entry potentially most interesting. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, you are probably already aware of this resource, but I've found the photo archives here enormously helpful (as well as just intriguing). I didn't know if there might be any related to this subject, but wanted to pass on the resource. It's the Spanton-Jarman Collection of Photographs of Bury St Edmunds.[1] You can see the browse photographs tab on the left. Hope this is helpful. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

saluto

when will this far away part be completed, will you be replenished and refreshed rather than used up? You are missed. Edmund Patrick – confer 14:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mfd

If you are around, please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Proud

For your enjoyment: The Proud Bassoon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Play the piano and then look at the picture book, memories of many more friends besides Stockhausen. - I'm finishing Paulinerkirche for DYK, if you want to take a look. I remember your help with Klaus Mertens, who was mentioned in a recent discussion. His student, whom he replaced in 2009, will now come to sing Messiah with us. (I like the construction for Messiah, perfect timing.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Eebahgum. You have new messages at Kleinzach's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Eebahgum. You have new messages at Kleinzach's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cantata

No problem, I do it all the time, s. today Mass in B minor discography. Could you please "English" my latest baby, Tatiana von Metternich-Winneburg, a great person. How do I avoid "she she" in such a case? Just Metternich sounds wrong. No ref so far said that she spoke many languages fluently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music_of_the_United_Kingdom#Recent_Mfd.2Fproposal_to_redirect. Thanks. --Kleinzach 00:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom again!

I know you would prefer to bow out of this, but it has come up again, see WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom/Requested move to WikiProject British Music. Regards. --Kleinzach 08:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wertheimber and La nonne sanglante

I enjoyed reading the article on Sophie Cruvelli, but am confused by what you mean when you say that "Wertheimber's Paris career was encompassed in its fall" (meaning Crosnier's withdrawal of La nonne sanglante). Can you elaborate on this? Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Kutsch and Riemens say she did continue to sing at the Opéra up until at least 1863, but there are no details as to the parts she got, so apparently they were not particularly important. I got interested because she appeared briefly at the Théâtre Lyrique near the end of her career as La reine Mab in Balfe's La bohémienne (according to TJ Walsh's book, but he has very little information about her). Gourret implies she sang mainly in provincial theatres after La nonne and also says she appeared at the Opéra-Comique (K&R don't mention this), and says "ses belles notes graves, rapporte Théophile Gautier, électrisaient les salles". --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I made some more alterations based on Huebner's book on Gounod's operas and Anne Williams' essay plus some additional sources, which add more detail and hopefully help to clarify the situation a bit more. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your word

I just linked to a word I only know thanks to you, used a more lady-like one further below. Btw Messiah's parts are on the Main Page for the rest of the day, improvements welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Dale

Hello - Glad you've been taking an interest in Benjamin Dale. I see you've simplified the syntax of two sentences I originally wrote. Thank you. Not being grammatician (and being somewhat skeptical of highly prescriptive linguistics), I tend to go by ear and decorum. Here, I feel that the change you made in the second of the two sentences (the one about Bowen) is a definite improvement. On the other hand I tend to prefer "...Arnold Bax, another promising pianist-composer who would become a lifelong friend" because "would become" seems to avoid technical ambiguity after "another". Also, the friendship may not have been so immediate. However, I wouldn't want to make a big issue of this.--MistyMorn (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful and interesting reply. I'll certainly reflect on your points about "encyclopaedic" style — something I've been trying to come to grips with in the last few months. It's also a good feeling to have the chance to correspond with a person who has a connection with Dale himself. Can I perhaps interest you in a colleague of Dale's at the Royal Academy of Music, Frederick Keel? A bit further down the line, I hope to contact the RAM to try to fill in some obvious information gaps in Keel's biography, and maybe access publishable photos of both men. I appreciate your thoughts. Best wishes--MistyMorn (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Interesting about their tastes at the time (Scriabin somehow seems to chime with the extravagance of the sonata). Yes, of course, I'm preparing a list of Keel compositions... Looking forward to getting it done. And this conversation will encourage me to get back to the Dale article sometime soon. Thank you. Best wishes--MistyMorn (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I wanted to thank you also for casting your eagle eye over the Keel article. It's good to know there's nothing obviously too far wrong about it!--MistyMorn (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's rather how I see it too. Thanks--MistyMorn (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ivychurch Priory, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages M.P. and J.P. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Grinke

Hi Eebahgum. I've done some edits to the Frederick Grinke article you created. There are two citations that need page numbers. Do you still have the access to the two books? Thanks Argolin (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Eebahgum. You have new messages at Argolin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Argolin (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Seven Seals

Thanks for your note, good for my heart! (Is there an English word for wohltuend?) Smiling I discovered yesterday that it was you who created Schmidt's oratorio article. My brother played it last weekend and was very impressed. From the program notes I get the impression that it is no less than the complete apocalypse, unchanged words for essential passages, summarising poetry for the others. - The one who gave us the gem (GA) is under CCI, I try to help. Whispered: our friend's latest string quartet will get the University of Birmingham chamber music prize on 18 February, a more pleasant task. Visit my user page, for glimpses on my life, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	Wisdom
	Thank you for your profound remark on pixillated morality which I archived but returned, to remind us what to avoid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Passion: He was despised --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Peace or: 10,000 Easter eggs for you, top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

One who was despised returned, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the sixth recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, it still applies (your remark archived again, should be returned again), repeated in br'erly style:

Wisdom
Thank you for your profound remark on pixillated morality which I archived but returned, to remind us what to avoid, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the sixth recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings

Lovely to hear from you, and a brilliant 2013 to you in these interesting times. Still here, just about, never pro-active always re-active, which as you know gets boring. I do love humanity though, even via electronic social interactions I see there are fellow wikipedians that work with you who work with others, who in turn have worked with me. Maybe there is hope for us all. Are you keeping well and busy? Edmund Patrick – confer 20:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Peace concert

Look! Everyday I try to find an opera item related to the day, today I found this. Only rarely do I look further at the history, - today I did because was written well and with a heart: I found you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Barton McGucken

Should James Ludwig read William Ludwig? If so you can link to William Ludwig (singer). Noel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelyoung20 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Braham

Dear EBG, thanks for your comments. Actually the Braham article probably needs general rewriting - it's largely a paraphrase of the section on Braham in my own book, and at the very least the various quotations need citing. The Hazlitt quote is excellent, and I hadn't come across it before - many thanks for this. At some point I will indeed redo the article and cite at least part of it; or of course you are welcome to add it yourself. At the moment I am rather tied up with Frédéric Chopin who is proving rather troublesome. All best for 2014 - --Smerus (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I was just listening to Martin Carver talking about Portmahomack and Sutton Hoo on Radio 4's Making History earlier on and realized that our paths hadn't crossed for ages and ages. I hope you are well, or at least better, and that 2014 has started well. All the very best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you active! - I added to some members of the Melos Ensemble recently. - How do you like the dream on my talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

advise needed

hello, once again our ships sail pas each other. lots of personal news which when i see you again i will tell of (sounds a bit like a saga!) but can you please have a look at the question on Edmunds Talk Page about the A/S chronicle and answer if at all possible. Hope all is well Edmund Patrick – confer 05:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gabriel Wüger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solesmes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Harry Plunket Greene

The same questions had occurred to me, too. But he had already been categorized under "Irish opera singers" and "Operatic baritones" before I came along, and so I was just rounding out the categories in a logical fashion. If you think other categories would be more apt, please feel free to make the change. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

My own feeling is that if a category is obviously wrong, then I have no trouble changing it. In an instance such as this, where an argument can be made for the choices already decided upon, I'd rather leave well enough alone with my edits and have the debate another way. If that makes any sense - I promise it does in my head. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article Lena Andersson that I have created. Could really need some help with it. Any help is appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologies I linked the wrong article. Lena Larsson. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lena Larsson

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cruvelli

Thanks for your note. I guess that I just felt that it was difficult to make out her features with that very dark background, especially as it was the prime pic of the article, the first thing you see. But I've no objection to having both in there.

I've been trying to give some of the opera articles some visual enhancement, if only to avoid huge chunks of text going on and on.....I think I used the latest one on Les vêpres siciliennes, which didn't have any and found it somewhere.

I've found with some lithos and paintings too, that there is so much superfluous border "stuff" or blank canvas surrounding the person that it's hard to make them stand out. In some cases, I've actually used Photoshop to crop a pic, then reloaded it back up to Commons and a second version.

But I have no fixed views on this on the Cruvelli article, so feel free to replace and/or add in the other in an appropriate place. All the best for 2015. Happy editing! Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Just saw your latest note. This one is still on Commons at [[File:Sophie Cruvelli.jpg]] but not on that website.... Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

Wisdom
Thank you for your profound remark on pixillated morality which I archived but returned, to remind us what to avoid, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the sixth recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - music for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thanks for your good wishes with hidden music (ring the "bell"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Eebahgum,

Thank you for your review of the page Der Mondabend, which I had recently created. Since I am natively not English-speaking, I therefore appreciate when other users are improving my writings.

Best wishes for a fruitful 2016, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you also for it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Belated best wishes for 2016

Thanks for your note. I ordered Nick Higham's book about Ecgfrith yesterday, so Anglo-Saxon England remains well ahead of sexual dimorphism among spiders (did I really edit that?) in my affections. Unfortunately, I don't seem to have much time to write these days, but hope springs eternal. All the best! Angus McLellan (Talk) 06:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Willow

The article looks good and improved. I don't know much about the subject though. I made Turner's article because it was in the Dictionary of National Biography. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Gaynesford

Thanks for your comments. You are quite right that one should not alter references, specially when the search engines used by UK archives can be pathetically inept. And I agree that, as the ancestry of the Whites of South Warnborough contains numerous uncertainties, it is best not to be too precise about Robert Hungerford. Given an odd moment, I'll correct both points. Clifford Mill (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Looking again at the references for the article, none of the items with the name Gainsford in them are in quotation marks, which would suggest that the text follows an original form and which I would not have altered without checking against the original. Nor do any have online links to resources such as http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk, where people can check for themselves. What I've done is to insert the following note: “In the sources, the family name may appear in the standard form of Gainsford or as the archaic Gaynesford or Gaynesforde.” Clifford Mill (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Though many sources claim that Margaret Gainsford's husband Robert White was a knight, some even making him a Knight of the Bath, I can't find a reliable online record of his will, monument or IPM, any of which would indicate his rank with certainty, and the Robert White who served as sheriff of Hampshire in 1506 (if it was him) does not seem to have been a knight. So, in the absence of convincing evidence, I've demoted him. Clifford Mill (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the transcription of his MI, which offers first-hand proof of his status (it would be “miles” rather than “armiger” if he were a knight) and of his year of death (1512, rather than the 1513 which appears all over the internet). Clifford Mill (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Edward Packard (businessman)

Hi - Thanks for your edits to Edward Packard (businessman). There are a few paragraphs without references at the end. Please could you add references wherever possible per WP:CITE. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

user page

read it, did not grasp it, re-read it and stunning thoughtful and far far too honest.....You should think about putting it out into the tweeterspheere or something. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 15:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

2018

Not sure where this time period will take us and the rest of the world, the danger of living in interesting times! Hope you are well, wherever you physically are these days, take care. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Seven Seals

Nice meeting you on The Book with Seven Seals. Can you give us more lead, please? - A friend always told me I have to listen to it, but I didn't manage yet. I linked from a singer who performed it at the Salzburg Festival ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Cudworth's mother

Hi, Lionheart0317, Thanks for your reply on the James Cudworth talkpage. I'm replying here because it would be a pity to clutter up the J.C. talkpage a with a long continuation of all the discussion that takes place elsewhere on this subject. The only reason I reverted your good faith edit was because it did not carry an inline citation, which simply left the matter as it really is, still undecided. If a proper publication of the case is available to cite then okay, but, if not, then here it ought to remain based on sources. And here there is room to be a bit more chatty, so please forgive the following continuation!

I am quite aware of the Hackney baptisms as it was I who pointed them out to Ms Boaz in the first place, after inspecting the original register in person, and she acknowledges me in her text - and her work is the source cited in the discussions about this problem in favour of the John side of the argument. I am also quite aware of Ursula's Cambridge connection at the end, which is not surprising (geographically) since there is a long history as to how she hung onto her part of the estate at Woodbury with and without the help of her son in law William Baber. Interestingly her will makes no mention of any member of her own family: you'd think she might at least have mentioned the Cudworths, as he was only a couple of streets away, if she was Ralph's grandmother, and in 1639 he was quite undecided about his future.

Ralph Cudworth went to Emmanuel College Cambridge because both his father and his stepfather had been there before him, and the college was then sympathetic to their religio-political standpoint. Their (the fathers') connection with Cambridge was at a time when John Machell (the supposed father of Mary) was in and out of prison in London for debt, his wife and children were not speaking to him, and he was in the process of disinheriting his son and heir John (son of 1st wife Frances Cotton) in favour of his grandson. Have you read the chapter by Mike Gray on the Machells in the book Sutton House — a Tudor Courtier’s House in Hackney (2004)? I don't agree with one or two points but it is very well-referenced and gives some idea of the horrible entanglements which John got himself and all his relations into. Even this is not exhaustive, and yet Gray has read a great many of the lawsuits.

Anyhow, these are stray thoughts. But until there is a proper published article on this bringing all the evidence up to date, people will just keep adding in favour of Matthew or John, and the answer will still be the same - it is undecided. I hope I have not given offence in just trying to keep things simple. With best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I apologise, Ursula does mention one family member, her nephew Robert Hynde. No Machells or Cudworths though. And when Ralph wrote to his stepfather for advice about taking a fellowship, in 1639, shortly before John Stoughton died (T. Solly, The Will Divine and Human (Deighton Bell & Co., Cambridge/Bell & Daldy, London 1856), pp. 287-91. (Google)), he sends greetings to his stepmother, and good wishes for their latest infant, and greetings from his brother and sister, but says nothing about his (supposed) grandmother, with whom he would surely have been closely in touch if she had gone there to be near him? And the Hyndes came from Madingley anyway, so it's quite natural that she went back to live in Cambridge. Eebahgum (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eebahgum, the arguments for John Machell and Ursula Hynde being the correct parents of Mary (Machell) Cudworth Stoughton has already been litigated on several genealogical newsgroups and blog spaces. By informing you of where the current argument stands and the current conclusion wasn't an invite to reopen this topic. It seems clear, even to the lay person, that by looking at the evidence without any preconceived notions, the most novice genealogist/historian would conclude that John Machell, and not his brother Matthew, was the actual father of Mary (Machell) Cudworth Soughton. The current conclusion reached after protracted debate by several genealogists is here, which states: "Summary, the connection of two of Ursula (Hynde) Machell's first cousins to the household of Prince Henry (whom Mary Machell also served), together with the existence of the 1584 Hackney baptism record of Mary Machell among the presumed children of John and Ursula Machell, together with the fact that Ursula (Hynde) Machell at the end of her life moved to Cambridge, where Ralph Cudworth (Jr.) had just finished his studies and begun his career, indicates that John Machell, and not his brother Matthew, was the father of Mary (Machell) Cudworth." --Lionheart0317 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, But this is not a situation in which the appearances to "the most novice genealogist/historian" (to use your terms) ought to have much weight. Douglas Richardson, who is a highly experienced and knowledgeable genealogist, has expressed the opposite opinion to this within the discussions you are referring to, i.e. in reconsideration of your new evidence, and this should have some weight. It is the easiest thing in the world, to be mistaken. A key word in the conclusion which you quote is "presumed" (children of John and Ursula Machell). I once presumed that too. However the fact that Mathew Machell's son John also appears in the same Hackney baptism register for 1580, on the date exactly matching that given as the day of his birth in Mathew's 1593 I.P.M., means that there is not, in fact, any presumption that these are all the children of John and Ursula Machell: indeed the opposite is proveably true. Does that appear in your blogspots and forums? If not, then their conclusions are merely provisional.

However I am going to add a footnote to the J.C. article referencing your wikitree link at this point and I hope that will be honour satisfied until somebody brings the argument round the other way again. I will put a copy of this reply on your talkpage where I originally posted my message to you. Regards, Eebahgum (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Eebahgum, you stated "Douglas Richardson, who is a highly experienced and knowledgeable genealogist, has expressed the opposite opinion..." I should point out that Richardson is not without error and has made some gross errors in regard to this parentage issue. Someone's "reputation" is not a certification of accuracy for any lineage or genealogical matter. On a website where many "respected and accomplished" genealogists write opinions, one such genealogist recently stated:

"Douglas Richardson stated: 'Without getting into a lengthy discussion, I can certify that the Cudworth-Machell-Lewknor connection is sound.'

My response, after lengthy discussion both at Wikitree and on SGM's 'Machell of London' thread:

Richardson's 'certification' was premature at the very least.

Richardson appears to have made three separate errors here.

1) Richardson appears unaware that there were TWO marriages of two separate women named Mary Machell: In addition to the well-known marriage 1611 of Mary Machell to Ralph Cudworth just outside of London (where the family of John and Ursula Machell was located), there was the 1617 marriage of Mary "Mashall" of Kingston Bowsey, the Lewknor estate far from London where Mary (Lewknor) Machell was buried in 1604.

2) Richardson falsely assumes that, in the 1646 will of John Machell (son of Mathew), that cosen/kinswoman can ONLY mean niece.

3) Richardson falsely states that "Mr. Bellasis indicated that Mary Machell, wife of Rev. Ralph Cudworth, was duly recorded as a daughter of Matthew Machell and Mary Lewknor in manuscript sources found in the College of Arms, which he styled 'C. 21, C. 26, etc.'"

This statement appears to be a rather gross error. Bellasis indicates sources at various places on his pedigree, including "C.21, C. 26, etc.", but at the location of Mary Machell and Ralph Cudworth his source is NOTHING AT ALL. (Bellasis DOES give specific sources for some of the children of Mathew and Mary Machell, but not for Mary.) Bellasis gives no indication to support Richardson's thin-air supposition that Bellasis had some sort of document indicating that Mathew and Mary (Lewknor) Machell had a daughter Mary who married Ralph Cudworth. However, perhaps one of Bellasis's sources DID indicate that Mathew and Mary had a daughter Mary, whom Bellasis mistakenly assumed was the wife of Ralph Cudworth, because Bellasis was unaware of the 1617 marriage record of "Marie Mashall" to Rev. James Harrison in Kingston Bowsey, one of the homes of the Lewknors."

As you can see, someone's reputation or analysis means nothing, especially when it contains errors in forming a conclusion. --Lionheart0317 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Lionheart0317, I am sure you and I have both looked long and hard at this problem. I have a number of evidences which are not in any of the discussion forums at present and probably you have too. I know that Bellasis makes several glaring mistakes in his pedigree references, and like you I have been very frustrated by them. One cannot take any of them at face value without going to the actual documents cited and checking. I am restricted in what I can say here by professional reasons, but I can say from first-hand knowledge that both Bellasis, and also Mrs de Salis in the NEHGR pedigree, were working from older pedigrees which clearly make Cudworth related to this part of the Machell family, though the generations get garbled. Truly, it is not "thin air". I think it very likely that there is an unpublished College of Arms pedigree (which may or may not be actually correct) which then crept into the sources used, perhaps creatively, by both Salis and Bellasis (who didn't use Salis). I agree with your point 2, that cosen might not mean niece - though equally, it might, and at that date often does. I think you are a little hard on Mr Richardson, though like you I don't just accept what he says uncritically. But when he says he has other reasons for thinking as he does, it's worth remembering that he has a great deal more genealogical knowledge than both of us put together, and there I take him at his word. And we don't actually know whether his conclusion is right or wrong, even if we think we do! The Kingston Bowsey (or "Buci") marriage is interesting. Are you aware of the marriage of Robert Machell in the same church in Southwark as the Cudworth marriage, about 3 years later? And there is a Robert in the Hackney baptisms too. It is all too easy to be "sure", but who knows, your "smoking gun" may someday show up. Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to just wait and see. --Thanks, Lionheart0317 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(Eventualism)

Wikipedia is indubitably less useful than it could be. Andrew Undershaft rationalises his amorality: "Remember the Armorer's Faith. I will take an order from a good man as cheerfully as from a bad one. […] I can make cannons: I cannot make courage and conviction." Just so here: Wikipedia (the Undershaft) can make articles (the cannon), but it cannot make honesty and gumption, either in its contributors or its readers. Wikipedia will accept a contribution from (and divulge its content to) a good contributor as cheerfully as from (to) a bad one. Calling me "recklessly optimistic" is the best thing anyone has said to me this week :-) On a tangent, I speculate that human limitations render the whole universe (which is precisely "that perceived by humans") "incomplete", and even were we granted a glimpse of the Platonic Ideal Wikipedia® we would therefore not recognise its absolute completeness . By the way, I am indeed enjoying the sunshine - I just wish I were out in it! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 11:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Anniversaries

	Wisdom
	Thank you for your profound remark on pixillated morality which I archived but returned, to remind us what to avoid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Four years ago ...

wisdom
... you were recipient no. 6 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Missed

Just saw your latest note. This one is still on Commons at [[File:Sophie Cruvelli.jpg]] but not on that website.... Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice work on William Hewett. GtstrickyTalk or C 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Anthony Earbury) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Anthony Earbury, Eebahgum! Wikipedia editor SkyGazer 512 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you: ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Image option reversion

Please be aware of what I was doing in adjusting the image sizes that I did. I was changing those options to remove Lint errors (refer to WP:Linter).

In the images I was editing, "300" is not a valid size format. Since it wasn't specified properly as a size (it needs "px" after the number to be valid), it was seen as an attempt at an image caption instead (which is a problem, because an image caption already exists). My choices were to either correct the formatting or delete the number, and my natural instinct is to correct the formatting, since this was probably the size other editors intended.

Reverting my changes also brought the errors back. Since it's apparently your preference to keep the images at the default size thumbnails generate, I've removed the numbers in their entirety (even though this clashes with the intent of the editor who put those numbers there to begin with).

For future reference, however, if you don't like the resulting sizes, please don't completely revert my changes and restore the errors in the process. Adjust the sizes yourself to what you think is best instead. Refer to WP:EIS if you need help doing so. Wsan2 (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The many William Barnard Clarkes

I boldly split William Barnard Clarke (physician) from William Barnard Clarke, as the article strayed off-topic. The earlier article should be primarily about the architect and archaeologist, or perhaps be converted into a disambiguation page if any of the other W. B. Clarkes are notable for their own articles (although in the case of the physician and curator, it appears unlikely). While I am generally in favor of joint biographies for closely related people who are near universally treated as a duo (e.g. Bonnie and Clyde, or most bands with non-individually notable members), biographies covering multiple unrelated people, even those who are often confused, don't serve a very useful purpose and hinder accurate linking from other articles. Please feel free to improve and expand both articles. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed you've used a lot of primary sources. Be cautious of building Frankenstein's monster! --Animalparty! (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

very droll :| I found who I was looking for, an Australian geologist. cygnis insignis 19:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Geoffrey Chamber) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Geoffrey Chamber.

User:Cwmhiraeth while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

An interesting and well-written article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cwmhiraeth}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Thankyou very much for your appreciation. It helps! Eebahgum (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

ONDB

I am typing this on a phone so its brief. You have me at a disadvantage to which article do you refer? -- PBS (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it duh it was in the title of the section. Answer within 24 hours. –PBS (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is William Beckford of Somerley and the edit was "Revision as of 18:36, 22 March 2021". The change from:

• R.B. Sheridan, 'Beckford, William (1744–1799)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (OUP 2004), superseding A. Goodwin, 'Beckford, William (d. 1799), historian', Dictionary of National Biography (1885–1900), Vol. 4.

to

• Sheridan, R.B. (2004). "Beckford, William (1744–1799)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/1904. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) The first edition of this text is available at Wikisource: "Beckford, William (d.1799)" . Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 4. 1885. p. 82. .

You ask:

"can you explain why, for ODNB, it is considered desirable to refer to an online edition which many users cannot access, when no link is actually necessary simply to cite an article in ODNB as if one were citing any published work? What's wrong with just the plain bibliographical reference standing alone? Perhaps it is just that some people can access it?"

1. There is nothing wrong with a stand alone reference, but what wrong with updating it?
2. I put it to you that far more people have access to the online edition than the physical book. This is particularly true for many Wikipedia editors (who are the ones who tend to check the text against the citations). The OUP have embraced online and receive revenue through paid subscriptions particularly from libraries both public and university. This is true for a host of their publications including:
   • Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John, eds. (2001). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56159-239-5. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. Although this particular article has not been updated (Published in print: 23 September 2004, Published online: 23 September 2004) the OUP often update articles and when they do it is to the online edition.

You also ask:

"Also, the old DNB version is not 'the first edition of this text', as the machine makes it say, but is an old and different text by a different author in a work which is not merely 1st edition of the ODNB but a separate but older work in its own right."

Actually in many cases if an article exists on Wikisource (DNB) then ODNB is an update. If the old text is reviewed (and updates it where necessary), then both authors are credited with the word (review) next to the 21st century author. I think you make a valid point about the wording in prescript the template and I personally would be happy to change "The first edition of this text is available at Wikisource" to "Superseding", and I would support such a change, but it is something to propose at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography". If you make this suggestion please notify me.

Two last points (1) the location of the DNB articles on Wikisource have moved from:

s:Beckford, William (d.1799) (DNB00)

to

s:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Beckford, William (d.1799)

The templates takes care of the path to the article, so a change to the template automatically altered in about 16,300 articles.

(2) if you are linking to a sister project article, and not using a template, then please use the [[project name:article name]] instead of a url (as described in sister projects § How to link).

-- PBS (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about reference templates

Hi Eebahgum, I noticed that you've written quite a few articles relating to Kent and Sussex. So it's possible you might have noticed me on your watchlist fiddling with references like in this edit. It has two purposes: (1) link to the digitised articles so that readers can find out more and (2) so that the list of journals cited by Wikipedia is up-to-date. The first part is the important bit, but the second is useful as it can demonstrate the impact of making article open access. However, I think the only way for the report to be updated is if citation templates are used. I've tried to steer clear of your articles until I've had a chance to check how you feel about citation templates since I know some prefer to format references in their own way for various reasons. So would you mind if I edited some of the references in your articles as suggested above? No worries if you'd prefer I don't. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I replied:
Hi, Richard, thankyou for your message and for the courtesy of your question. I can only acknowledge with gratitude the good faith in which it is presented, though you'll see below that, since you do ask, I hope you will understand why my response is not one that is favourable to your suggestion. If you trouble to look at the edit histories of the articles I have worked on over the past few years, you'll see that a good deal of my time is spent in this work, freely given, and I hope given with great care.

I believe that, if you had spent the amount of time which I have spent, carefully searching out the details of these sources, and presenting them in a full and regularized format, in order to support the article texts so painstakingly assembled and written, you would hesitate further before attempting to impose a wholesale change of format on one part of the scholarly mechanism for somewhat arbitrary purposes. I have often collaborated, but what you propose is submission to an order which has no better validity than the order I myself, as author, have adopted. There is no rule in the matter of reference format, but I have aimed for consistency according to an accepted and recognized academic format.

The honest and direct answer is, that I really very much hope you won't go through all the articles I have worked at length on, replacing the journal references with your template. Since I started editing here in 2006 it took me a while to get up to speed with adequate referencing - things were looser in the earlier times - but over the past 6 or 7 years I have been, I hope, VERY consistent and thorough. The journal references follow a pattern which is related to all the other kinds of book references, so if you change just the journals it will make a hotchpotch of everything I have been doing. I would find it extremely disheartening, and actually a great deterrent to making any further contributions, if this were to happen. If it is done merely to add the names of some journals to a list, the better procedure would be for you to go through my references visually with a notebook and write the journal names down (as I do when I am working on articles), and to add them manually to your list, rather than disrupting the whole system of referencing in an article just to simplify a task of secondary importance to the article itself.

The formats of the references are therefore as I have intended them to be, and you will find that in almost every case the references are directly linked to the page in the source text. To change them all would be unnecessary in relation to your first reason for wanting to do it, would almost certainly involve a certain amount of loss of data (because many of the "journal" or "series" references are more complicated than allowed for in a simple template, and there is the problem of page-number ref and linkage), and (though the proces of alteration) would open the gates to a general possibility of confusion of data which I am not in a position to monitor. It would, above all, entirely disrupt my attempts to establish a consistent formula of referencing, without bringing any particular benefit. I really do not have the inclination to spend precious time correcting or checking for correction the corrections of another editor to what I have already, with great care, written correctly and consistently.

You have asked my opinion, and that is it. I don't see what more I can say. At any rate, thankyou for giving me the chance to say it. Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The effort that has gone into ensuring your articles are well referenced and consistently is very clear, which is what gave me pause for thought before making the edits. In many cases where I've been tweaking the references I've been adding missing information (eg: an author or article title) but that wouldn't be the case in the articles you've worked on as they already contain all relevant bibliographic information. I certainly wouldn't want to disrupt a system that is working well, so I'll leave things as they are.

By the way, in case it's useful the whole run of the Sussex Archaeological Collections became available online a couple of months ago. The early ones are available on the Internet Archive as you've seen, but now the later volumes can be consulted too.

Apologies for worrying you! I appreciate that someone randomly popping up and asking if they can make lots of changes to something finely tuned would give cause for concern. I'd been wondering how to put my question for a while for that reason, and did not get it quite right. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

2024

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Like 2019, see above ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)