This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Relata refero (talk | contribs) at 08:20, 12 February 2008 (→Your cheery and polite note: clarity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:20, 12 February 2008 by Relata refero (talk | contribs) (→Your cheery and polite note: clarity)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
This user is very busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Your cheery and polite note
Two things.
First, I can't for the life of me understand why you'd think I'd know nothing about it. Rushing to judgment in these matters is a terrible thing, and so embarrassing later.
Second, dawdle over to the main page when you've time. It says there, right on top "Misplaced Pages! The free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit." Not "the free encyclopaedia that only those with personal acquaintance of the subject can edit" or, for that matter - tragically - "the free encyclopaedia only those that are not cretins can edit".
So, I suggest you moderate your tone just a smidgen. I might be a little lost lamb in these matters - in your opinion formed in such unfortunate haste - but nevertheless I can edit that damned article.
About the facts of this particular matter: we use the most 'mainstream' view of the matter in our text, and, as the title of the associated article suggests, the mainstream view is that the House was reformed, not that the hereditary peers were 'expelled'. And about the other matter, you may or may not be right. I certainly hasten to point out that we have a reliable source specifically saying editor and one, less reliable, saying patron. Under such circs., best to use a formulation that doesn't come down on one side or another.