User talk:Welham66

Welcome

Hello, Welham66, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. If you are looking for help, please do any of the following:

visit the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have
type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will answer your questions shortly
visit the directory of help pages

There are a lot of standards and policies here, but as long as you are editing in good faith, you are encouraged to be bold in updating pages. Here are a few links you might find useful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. Also, it would be a huge help if you could explain each of your edits with an edit summary. Again, welcome! –Outriggr § 03:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Films? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Erik. I'm still very much on the editing learning curve so I'm sure the page you mention will be useful. I'll have a good look at the task forces you mention. Just a quick question. All the film articles I've looked at have a plot summary section. Are these encouraged by the film groups? I can't see how a plot summary can be referenced very easily. Either it's drawn from some other plot summary or it's based on the editor's memory of seeing the film? Some film articles don't have much else apart from a plot summary, with or without references. We used to get told off for writing literature essays that merely re-told the story, but an encyclopoedia article is a very different thing from a literature essay. I find the plot summaries on wikipedia very useful if I've seen a movie and missed some plot details.

Welham66 (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Gould edit screwup

Hello, Welham66. You have new messages at Gareth McCaughan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Summary: I screwed up, sorry.)

update from last week

Is this issue still unresolved?--chaser (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up, chaser. It's more or less resolved for the time being I think. Some issues remain but some progress seems to have been made. Welham66 (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!

Very nice work on the money article. We need more wiki gnomes to fix up grammar, presentation and spelling. I'ld like to present you with a barnstar to recognize and encourage your good work. Best, LK (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Your good work is seen and appreciated! LK (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much LK. It's nice of you to recognise my very modest contribution. Welham66 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland

Hi! Welham66! Thank you for your message! I am very happy that you generally approve of my edits; the article is still very incomplete, of course. I hope to elaborate on some themes with time. Unfortunately, Northumberland carries along lots of "historiographical baggage" (historian Stephen Alford, meaning his black legend). The historiography of the reign of Edward VI has seen major revisions since the 1950s; what is especially important here: the notion that Dudley (or others apart from the King) were primarily responsible for the altered succession is almost extinct among academic historians by now. For an informal view see this piece by a former WP editor who is a professional historian (that was before my time here; I recently hit upon it by chance).

As regards the paragraph about Mary I in the last section (Morris), I will try to find the date of her triumphal entry because that happened after Northumberland gave up, and it had little to do with the actual change of power (that's why I probably thought it does not so much belong to this article). Dudley's unpopularity is now mentioned directly before this (as well as in an earlier section) and more to this effect will be added, expanding.

I have to change the term "legitimacy", however, as Mary was technically illegitimate because of her father's laws which he never changed; he only restored her to the succession, not in blood; which means she was not Henry's heir, but a successor; i.e., she just happened to be one of the persons he nominated in his Act and his testament (see e.g., Henry VIII of England#Final years: 1540-1547; WP is correct in this instance). As Queen, Mary had herself legitimized by her first parliament.

I would also like to remove that Dudley "mistreated" Mary (I mean apart from the Jane Grey thing); that was Mary's view, but she was unfair in this, ignoring the role of her brother; and, anyway, the pressure on her was not that great (e.g., Dudley restored the title of Princess of England to her in April 1553—which she had lost under her father—and she made profitable land exchanges with the Crown then and earlier).

That the English felt Catholic, that may be the case. I would however argue that this issue goes beyond the scope of this biographical article. Also, Mary made promises that she wouldn't make religious changes, which she then did not keep. When mass was restored, the London populace said they had preferred Northumberland to walk free rather than the mass!

Sorry for this rant, but I thought I should explain a bit (history... always problematic...) I will try to continue with the article, including some of the above issues (in small steps). Buchraeumer (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Welham66. You have new messages at Blake Burba's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the ce on Colonel Sun - much appreciated! SchroCat (^ • @) 19:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Welham66. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Welham66. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Welham66. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]