Talk:Graeme Davis (mediaevalist): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:13, 21 October 2017

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Which Leveson-Gower?

Item and description: Dictionary of Surrey English: A Revised Edition of Granville Leveson Gower's 1893 A Glossary of Surrey Words - "Book to be published December 2006 by Peter Lang within the series Historical Linguistics."

One reference to the 1893 work found: "Gower, Granville William Gresham Leveson. A glossary of Surrey words. (A supplement to no. 12.) By Granville Leveson Gower, F.S.A. Vaduz: Kraus Reprint, 1965." ("New Library Acquisitions, December 2006, Ohio University Libraries. Library of Congress Class P: Language and Literature.")

Was this Granville Leveson-Gower, 3rd Earl Granville (1872-1939)? Does "F.S.A." in this case mean Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries? — Athænara ✉ 09:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The full name is Granville William Gresham Leveson Gower, born 1838 died 1895. And Yes FSA is Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. Graemedavis 15:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Undone

The following was added by Talskiddy on 27th May. In view of Talskiddy’s stated position that he is “proud to be Cornish” on his Wikipedia User page it seems likely that this posting is motivated as a reaction to my recent edits on the Wikipedia page Constitutional Status of Cornwall, where there is a lively discussion. There was discussion about whether this page should be on Wikipedia in 2007 and the decision was to keep. Graemedavis (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you.

The Template:Uw-autobiography was added to the page you created because the article appears to be an autobiography. You have chosen to remove the template without discussion because: a) You disgree that it is an autobiography or b) you didn't like the template being added. This template conforms to guidelines organized by the user warnings project. I have chosen not to revert your removal of the autobiography template at this point but please explain why it should not be replaced.Talskiddy (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This article has been edited by MacRusgail. I have reverted it. MacRusgail has disagreed with some of my editing and discussion posts on the Wikipedia article Constitutional Status of Cornwall. He has now sort to question the status of a page Wikipedia has about me - this page. Issues about this page were discussed thoroughly in 2007 and the decision was mad to keep it.

I have now noticed two nuisance modifications to this page within a few days - the first by Talskiddy and this one by MacRusgail. Both have strong views on Cornwall. Whether by intention or accident their nuisance posts seem to imply that if I stop contributing to an article on Cornwall they will stop posting nuisance posts on an article about me. What does Wikipedia think about this? Graemedavis (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed a revert from Daicaregos. Daicaregos, like MacRusgail, is a contributor to the article "Constitutional Status of Cornwall", an article which I have also edited. These posts by Daicaregos, MacRusgail and also by Talskiddy appear motivated to cause a nuisance and to "warn me off" editing the article "Constitutional Status of Cornwall". I feel threatened. Graemedavis (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to WP:AGF does you no credit. There is no threat here, either implicit or otherwise. I noticed that a user named Graeme Davis was making edits to an article named Graeme Davis and decided to take a look. I may disagree with some of your Cornwall related edits but I am not out to get you. My motivation is to improve Wikipedia and ensure it is not brought into disrepute. Whether or not you continue to edit Cornwall related articles, you must not continue to edit an article about yourself. There is a clear conflict of interest here. I am astonished that you are unable to see that. I strongly advise you to read WP:COI and WP:AUTO. I am reverting your reversion of the tag placed on this article. I should point out to you that you are probably already in breach of WP:3RR and if you undo my reversion there is every likelyhood that you will be banned from editing. You may wish to contact a (n uninvolved) Wikipedia administrator to confirm this action. A full list can be found at WP:LA. Best. Daicaregos (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy Up

Added references and carried out a general tidy up of this page. HoveBrighton (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Having difficulty linking to the image. It is in Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graeme_Davis.JPG but the link from this page doesn't seem to be picking it up. HoveBrighton (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - you needed to use .JPG not .jpg. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Perhaps the "notability" should be as an author rather than as an academic. Amazon.co.uk list 34 books on their author page (some in both paper and eBook format, so about two-dozen titles). These include commercial press books with fair circulation/sales ranks including (in genealogy) "Your Family Tree Online", "Solving Genealogy Problems", "Researching Your Surname", (in popular history) "Vikings in America", "Early English Settlement of Orkney and Shetland" and (in dialect) "West Country English" and "Home Counties English". Additionally there's popular Lit Crit titles on J K Rowling, Dan Brown, T S Eliot and John Milton. These books have been cited or otherwise commented on in magazine articles, other books, television and radio. There may also be "notability" as an editor, eg "Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics" (ie editorship of a university's journal). The academic notability may possibly be made in terms of citation or impact (eg "University of Basrah Studies in English" in the context of rebuilding academe in Iraq) though it may be that the author and editor case is easier to make. If this article does stay it is out of date and needs revision. HoveBrighton (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked again at this. There's a 2007 discussion around deleting this article with the decision made to keep it. I don't see that anything has happened since then to reduce the "notability". My inclination is to revert the article to the form it had before the recent revision, update, and remove the tag. Do others think this is acceptable? Do I just go ahead and do this, including removing someone's tag? I think I've seen somewhere on Wikipedia that "notability" as a writer relates to sales (is this correct? What is the sales level?) and is therefore something which is objective. The "notability" as a writer is in three areas: literary criticism, genealogy and history; the "notability" as an academic is in series and journal editing as well as some work in linguistics. HoveBrighton (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our criteria for notability for academics have evolved considerably since 2007 and looking over that AfD, I see quite some arguments that would not cut any wood nowadays. As it stands, the article has no independent sources, only some listings, publisher's blurbs, etc., so there is no hard evidence of notability. If there is, that should be added to the article (adequately sourced, of course). Until then, the tag should stay. --Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I think sources could be improved - if nothing else they are out of date in the article as it stands. But I wonder if the primary area of notability is as an author (people/creative professionals) and whether this category change is the underlying change that should be made. That said there are both popular and academic books. Additionally some individual books appear to have notability though I doubt individual articles would make sense. HoveBrighton (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted. Is a brochure by the subject. There are far more important people without wikipedia pages. 81.155.154.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Graeme Davis (mediaevalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 * Interesting. I think sources could be improved - if nothing else they are out of date in the article as it stands. But I wonder if the primary area of notability is as an author (people/creative professionals) and whether this category change is the underlying change that should be made. That said there are both popular and academic books. Additionally some individual books appear to have notability though I doubt individual articles would make sense. [[User:HoveBrighton|HoveBrighton]] ([[User talk:HoveBrighton|talk]]) 00:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
-Article should be deleted. Is a brochure by the subject. There are far more important people without wikipedia pages. [[Special:Contributions/81.155.154.139|81.155.154.139]] ([[User talk:81.155.154.139|talk]])
+Article should be deleted. Is a brochure by the subject. There are far more important people without wikipedia pages. [[Special:Contributions/81.155.154.139|81.155.154.139]] ([[User talk:81.155.154.139|talk]])  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 07:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 == External links modified ==