Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 28 August 2013

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Reading matter

Just to continue the thread above, you may have noticed that PV hijacked my response to you on the Eleanor Butler talk page, assuming it was directed at her, so I reproduce it below.

Deb, if you run across anything in Hancock's book that contradicts that, please let me know, because when it comes to history, no author can be certain of anything. I finished reading Hancock's book a couple of months ago and I don't remember Hancock being sure or dogmatic about anything. I would be surprised if Hancock does that.

PV, what I think you're missing is that Hancock (and probaly JAH) is merely offering what he thinks MAY have happened and he offers evidence (not "proof") to back up his reconstruction, so I'm still not sure why you're so angry. I have no problem with people being passionate, but Deb is right regarding your tone. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You're correct about that, Bill. In fact, one of my problems with Hancock is that he hedges his theory about with so many ifs and buts that you start to wonder if he has anything really worth saying. I don't exactly blame him - the only surefire way to get a book published these days is to come up with some outrageous theory (look how well it's worked for Dan Brown), and that's also one of my problems with the whole Ricardian lobby - they are so full of theories about what might have happened to the Princes in the Tower that they fail to notice that most of those theories are mutually exclusive. Only one of them can be true, and no single alternative theory is as strong as the theory that "Richard did it" - sorry to be so blunt! What is good about Hancock is that he is going down less well-trodden paths. Unfortunately, he is not a strong enough writer to drag me away from Donna Tartt or even from wikipedia, so I haven't finished the book as quickly as I anticipated! Now, if you want something really interesting to read, something that is way ahead of its time, you could do worse than read Commines (in the original, of course - LOL). Deb (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to follow that up by saying that (whether or not you've read Commines or wish to), another writer I really recommend is Helen Castor, whose book She-Wolves is a masterpiece of English as it should be written, as well as highly informative and well thought through. At the Chalke Valley History Festival last year, she was part of a panel discussion which also included Thomas Penn (the Henry VII man) and I spoke to her briefly afterwards - very charming, modest lady. Deb (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha! It's funny you should mention her but I was checking out her book called Blood & Roses a few weeks ago because the last book I read on the Paston's was boring. I'll now add both of her books to my reading list, including Commines. By the way, can you recommend a Commines book? There are a lot of them out there and really would like to get a good edition. Thanks Deb. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me you can read Commines online to get the flavour - even (shock horror) among the Richard III Society's "assets": here (I'm assuming you want it in English.) There's an enduring Penguin edition: (do you do Goodreads?) Must get "Blood and Roses" now. Deb (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How does Archive Box work?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm trying to create an archive box, starting with Archive #2, that will automatically archive my talk page every 90 days. I've read the article on the Archive Box, but I can't seem to get it to work. Can someone give me the code needed to do this? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Archive box}} doesn't do the automatic archiving itself, you need to ask a bot to do it. As you can see on my talk page, I have bot code, I have modified it for your talk page. Simply copy and paste the code below to the top of your talk page and MiszaBot will start automatic archiving. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 21:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize      = 2500K
|minthreadsleft      = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo                = old(90d)
|archive             = User talk:Bill the Cat 7/Archive %(counter)d
|counter             = 2
}}

This will archive threads 90 days old - not every 90 days, let me know if this is a problem, it shouldn't be though. Also see User:MiszaBot/config for an explanation of the above code. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 22:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Patchy1, I'll try the above code and then check the link you provided for MiszaBot. Thank you very much for your help. It was greatly appreciated. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Test

Test. Ignore.

Wars of the Roses

Sorry I have been so inactive in the sandbox. Got sidetracked. I do intend to contribute.Deb (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I've been sick for the last week so I haven't done anything either. I'm planning on taking a copy of the latest WOTR article for the sandbox as there have been a couple of minor changes recently. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wizard wheeze, Jennings! Deb (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Howz this getting on? Deb will vouch for my talent if I can help. Basket _Feudalist 15:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't gone far, unfortunately. Deb has been very busy and I've been sick since last Thursday. I will most likely start work on it this Saturday and then hit Deb and you up for input. I'll need to update the sandbox with the latest edit since it has changed since I created the sandbox. Thanks for your interest. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hancock

Just to let you know I finally finished reading the book. I was disappointed with a few aspects of it:

• Rather confusing layout - it was annoying to have to keep flicking back and forth between footnotes, source material and narrative.
• Clumsy prose in places, including some of my pet hates such as the misuse of "may", eg. "Hastings may have helped Richard at the Battle of Bosworth" - no, he didn't, but he "might" have if he had been still alive!
• Some arguments based purely on secondary sources

However, I do agree with him that Stillington may well not have been the priest involved in the marriage ceremony - personally, if I wanted to keep something quiet, I would ask a very obscure, junior priest to do it, not the Keeper of the Privy Seal. Also, I think he is probably correct about Catesby, though the one possibility he doesn't explore is that Catesby, knowing of Eleanor's relationship with the king, just made up a plausible story about a pre-contract. Anyway, one mustn't look a gift horse in the mouth! Deb (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus

Why did you remove the contamination principle from the jesus article? You don't understand it or you don't agree with it? The source says he flew in the sky like a zombie spaghetti monster. You don't see how that is a problem with what is historical in the source and what is myth?