Misplaced Pages

User talk:Lordknowle

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lordknowle (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 18 March 2007 (→Personal attacks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:04, 18 March 2007 by Lordknowle (talk | contribs) (→Personal attacks)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Lordknowle, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Martin 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Red Arrows

Plus I noticed your helpful contributions to Red Arrows, perhaps you could add to the "References" section what your sources are. Thanks!! Martin 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

De Havilland link on Sea Vixen Page

reference (Sea Vixen)

Additionaly what is the basis for the de Havilland website being used as a reference? What in the article is based directly on the website? I don't think there is anything, and have removed the section. It could be argued that it should be in an "External links" section however. It must be remembered that most articles relating to de Havilland on Misplaced Pages are on historical aeroplanes, ones not in production - thus the important fact is what they were marketed as... And we come back to de Havilland. Thanks/wangi 22:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

reference
Might I suggest you read through those links in the welcome section above before jumping in both feet first. The link to the dh website does not belong in the references section simply because it is not a reference - it was not used in the research and writing of the article. A link to the manufacturer website would be properly placed in the External links section. I'd just like to echo what Arpingstone said regarding your tone - it's not very productive. Also, can you please sign all your comments with ~~~~. Thanks/wangi 11:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just love the comment about "jumping in both feet" - if removing an entry without prior (and equally civil) consultation isn't "jumping in..." then I don't know what on Earth is. Instead of producing flame wars or Wiki-World-War III, why didn't you just change the wording from “References” to "External Links"? There are some very interesting people on this site who are happy to enquire and ask questions in the proper manner – I have had some good private email conversations with people already who wish to know more about the jet portfolio. However, it seems that there also exists a small clique who relish their position as ‘editors’ in the same way that some traffic wardens get the “I’m in uniform, therefore you can call me God” paper-tiger syndrome. If the most significant achievement in their life is to be awarded editorial ‘power’ for an online encyclopaedia, then I’m happy to let them be – I have far more important things to be getting on with like running an aviation company and having a real life. Oh, nearly forgot... four tildes coming up... Lord Knowle 11:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile, and btw "Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit". wangi 11:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever!!!... yadda, yadda, yadda... Lord Knowle 12:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not my edit!

Hi! Please have a look at User talk:Arpingstone. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Knights Templar

My apologies for referring to your link as "spam". It was a shorthand term that I was using, but I did not mean to imply that you were advertising a commercial product.

I do have to admit, however, to some confusion as to just what the organization is about? Is it connected with the Freemasons, or how exactly is it connected to the Medieval order? --Elonka 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I've found a better place for your link. Have you seen the page at: Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem ? --Elonka 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the Knights Templar were dissolved in, or around, 1310 and their assets (and many members) passed to the Order of the Hospital of Saint John. They, in turn, managed to hang onto the assets until the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1538. Now are you telling me these groups have a website? The heirs of the Templars official website is . Please don't be so credulous to accept any substitute. All the best. Kbthompson 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hiya, I appreciate your efforts with the reference, but it's considered bad form on Misplaced Pages to cite your own website as a source. Can you find another source, preferably from a peer-reviewed journal of some type? Thanks. --Elonka 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Lordknowle, I appreciate that you feel strongly about the subject of the Knights Templar. However, can I please encourage you to stop making personal attacks on the editors who are working on the article, and concentrate instead on just working on the article. Calling names like "official policewoman", "majority shareholder of Misplaced Pages", or accusing an editor of a "confidence or inferiority problem," are not helpful towards a cooperative and collegial editing environment. It is also considered rude to include personal attacks in edit summaries. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, thanks. --Elonka 18:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read all the protocols ages ago when I joined Misplaced Pages - thank you for putting the links in as if I'm some sort of naughty schoolboy who hasn't read the school rules. My comments are not personal attacks, merely my observations and opinions as to how you are going about the editing of this/these article(s) i.e. in a somewhat pontificating manner, as if they are your personal domain - BTW, that's another opinion, not an attack. I could equally accuse you of personal attacks against my reputation and knowledge in this area. As a the holder of a PhD in the subject in hand, I think I know enough about the Templars to be able to contribute without having a games writer keep questioning my intelligence. The home page of Misplaced Pages states, quite clearly, "the 💕 that anyone can edit" i.e. no one (except the founder), not even you owns it, even though you might like to think you do, hence the reference to 'show me the stock-holders certificate'. There are some glaring errors in these articles, and any attmpt by me (or others) to correct them are instantly edited out, or piled deep with reference requests which just isn't on and goes against the whole idea of Misplaced Pages. We are all aware of the State-side tendancy to re-write history, or manipulate it to show the States in a good light (e.g. Enigma - gawd help the remake of other war films!) - but on a subject concerning European medieval history and heraldry, please leave the edits out when they have been put it in with good faith to enhance an article. Having seen some dreadful rewrites of history, I am keen to ensure that the legacy of the modern Order is not compromised by inaccurate recording of the history of the medieval one. There are many people on Misplaced Pages that seem to claim to know an awful lot about of a lot of things, but we all know that people can only know a little of many, or much of a few (subjects). This article was started in 2001, and I can't see you joining the article until 2005(?)/2006, so I don't personally see where this self-induced belief of ownership comes from - perhaps you could enlighten me. Maybe you were too busy producing your own self-promotion page entry to be interested in such a specialist subject at the time. Who knows? Lord Knowle 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)