User talk:Malick78

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot.
Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.

Welcome!

Hello, Malick78, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --BigDT 17:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info:)Malick78 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Sybille Bedford

Hey, I thought your additions to the Sybille Bedford article were really nice. So, um, good job! Watchsmart (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. That's most kind:) Malick78 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ngaire Thomas

Updated DYK query On 15 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ngaire Thomas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Ta. I'll do my best:) Malick78 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious notability

Hi there. We have been scratching each others back in regards to delving into the articles around the Plymouth Brethren. May I ask you for some more advise? How do I get a person of the dubious notability list? My J. Laurence Kulp entry is under threat of deletion. I am happy with what I have written, so cannot improve it. Surely he is more notable than other people covered in other entries.--Another berean (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi, I think you concentrate on the wrong thing. His most notable activity would seem to be here:

"During the 1950s he helped convince politicians that atomic bomb testing was a danger to health in regards to strontium-90 finding its way into the human food chain."

Plus the stuff about acid rain. Add that to the lead-in and downplay the Christian stuff (which is important to a small set of Christians only, not the wider world) - which should be in a less prominent section. Then it will be more obvious to casual readers why he is important in the general scheme of things. Hope that helps. :) Malick78 (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I will have a go. --Another berean (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 :) Malick78 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guenther Podola

Updated DYK query On 19 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guenther Podola, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query On 21 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Ashby, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Majorly (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patriarch Alexius II

I have made a suggestion at Patriarch Alexius II#Propose Protecting this Article that I think is workable. It changes the rules a little and should significantly reduce conflict. I would like to invite you to review the proposal and participate in the creation of a great article. It will stop edit warring by restricting work to the talk page in part because reverting another editors comments on the talk page is counter to WP:TALK. Jeepday (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query On 2 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John B. Harman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Bodkin Adams

You have been asked before to stop including him in inappropriate articles and categories, please cease and desist otherwise a request for comment will be opened on your behaviour. One Night In Hackney303 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We had this discussion before, and you lost then too. That's to do with his article, including him in an article for confirmed serial killers is another matter entirely. As I say, if you want your POV pushing to be ruthlessly exposed by edits like this go right ahead, but you won't come out of it looking good. One Night In Hackney303 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong, I have no position on Adams other than I object to him being included in articles or categories only based on opinion. However, you clearly do have a POV. One Night In Hackney303 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The competing viewpoint is right in front of you - he was found not guilty. One Night In Hackney303 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sacco and Vanzetti weren't serial killers. I've really nothing more to say to you. He wasn't convicted, he didn't confess, he was found not guilty. Anything else goes in his article where it belongs. One Night In Hackney303 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Dialogue isn't helpful when one person refuses to listen and insists on including their own POV in articles. As above, he was found not guilty. There's nothing more to be said on the subject, that alone is enough to justify his removal from any list or article that's not titled "suspected" or "alleged" and since we don't have any of those further discussion is a waste of time. One Night In Hackney303 20:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does. One is fact, the other is opinion. Facts are given more weight than opinion. One Night In Hackney303 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishopsgate bombing

I refer you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Tit for tat. One Night In Hackney303 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Telegraph article and cannabis

Thank you for your addition to the health effects of cannabis article. You asked that information from the telegraph article be included. However, as you will see below, the telegraph article is nothing but very poor journalism masquerading as fact. DrugScope response to Daily Telegraph front-page cannabis story, Friday 11 January Supposed (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Good point. So shall we put in 14 a week? Malick78 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Gazette

I've never had a problem with the linnks opening directly, the .pdf extension should normally be enough. What browser and OS are you using, is .pdf properly associated with Acrobat? You could try going to the Gazette search page, http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/AdvancedSearch.aspx?geotype=London entering Aubrey Melford Steed Stevenson in the "exact" field, and performing the search. That should bring up exactly the Gazettes I added to the article, and see if the links work properly for you from there - the template should be generating basically the same url (it doesn't preserve the search terms used, but other than that). If you have the same problem going at them that way, try contacting the Gazette itself. David Underdown (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from some fo the other edits I've made, there may well be further info from the same source for other articles you've created on British citizens. I usually find I get the best coverage by searching on full name, then first name, any middle initials (each followed by a full-stop), surname, then all initials followed by surname. David Underdown (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. As for the problem - I think it stems from the files being .aspx files - not a type I've seen before. I use Mozilla so maybe I can reconfigure it to open these automatically in Acrobat. I'll have a go and report back:) Malick78 (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, aspx are generated by ASP.NET and are realy the server side fiels, it should still emit a well-defined pdf file to your browser. Gazette staff have responded promptly to my queries in the past, so it's worth seeing if they're aware of the issue. David Underdown (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps should have asked you first, but I've moved the Stevenson article to simply Melford Stevenson, all the press relating to him refers to him as such, and the Times obituary I found states he "was universally known as 'Melford'", so per WP:COMMON, that's where he should be. David Underdown (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. I was puzzled at first but then I realised that that might be why you did it:) Malick78 (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melford Stevenson

Updated DYK query On 8 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melford Stevenson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 10 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Styllou Christofi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heinz-Wilhelm Eck

You asked for some citations on the claim about British and American submarine atrocities; I've was looking into this and it seems to be true. I've been adding the information to the relevant pages. I've left the Eck page alone so far; it's very apologist in its tone, but I'm not in the mood to tackle it just now. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the info:) Malick78 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your comments

thank you for worrying about wikipedia, if you think your deleting of important information just because it makes the statement of the public commission not that helpful to the Berezovsky's theory - it is not my problemCaesar Augustvs (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Everyone has a problem with your edits on the page in question. They are badly sourced. Please try harder:) Malick78 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chełm Chalk Tunnels

Updated DYK query On 22 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chełm Chalk Tunnels, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please refrain from personal attacks

In this edit, you make some substantive comments about editing the article... (which, by the way, I don't agree apply, but they were at least addressing the article), however, you ended your comments with a personal attack, which is a violation of WP:NPA. Please stick to the issues, and refrain from attacking people you disagree with. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop presenting copyrighted work as your own. It brings WP into disrepute. All you need to do is rephrase things in your own words. Your behaviour causes more work for other editors - who have to clean up the mess you have made. You had also been warned about this before. Malick78 (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
A short quote, in quotation marks, followed by a reference to the source is hardly presenting copyrighted work as my own. But now you are trying to deflect the issue at hand. Even if I had violated another WP rule, whether knowingly or unknowingly, that would not justify your violating WP:NPA, in the process of pointing it out. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was a whole paragraph! And you had been told about it before. Read the WP guidline I directed you to please. You did not comment on the quoted text - just made it flow into the main body of the text to save time rewriting. Malick78 (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Russkoe Bistro

A tag has been placed on Russkoe Bistro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay. I think you (or whoever) were a bit overzealous there - I made the page and planned to expand on it today. If you'd checked my main page you'd have noticed I've created quite a few new pages and good ones too. That should really have been enough to instil some trust and delay things... I didn't even get a chance to post the "hold on" tag. Also, the "what links here" button can show if things are notable - people might have learnt something about the page by using that. Never mind though... Malick78 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inteco DYK

Updated DYK query On 29 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Inteco, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Norris

Sorry if my actions somehow concerned you. I considered the crime unimportant because no article existed for it and there was only one reference for the conviction. A very WP:CIVIL discussion took place here about it. The process worked as it should. Cheers GtstrickyTalk or C 22:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay - thanks for the response:) Malick78 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Town Hall of Słupsk

Updated DYK query On 9 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Town Hall of Słupsk, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Colin Norris

Updated DYK query On 9 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colin Norris, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Spieprzaj dziadu!, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On March 15, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spieprzaj dziadu!, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Murderers of the elderly

Category:Murderers of the elderly, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:LGBT serial killers

Category:LGBT serial killers, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Torture murder

Can I ask that you have a look at recent changes on "Torture murder"? I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but it needs, imho, a bit of attention....Snori (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay. It worries me that you think I might be a specialist...;;) Malick78 (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edgardo Mortara

In Edgardo Mortara, you cited a book by Richard Dawkins several times. Is there anything about Edgardo Mortara in Dawkins' book that Dawkins didn't get straight from Kertzer's book, already cited? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Dawkins says that Kertzer "tells Mortara's story", but doesn't make it explicit that Kertzer is his only source. I would not be against someone changing the ref to Kertzer though (though then the page number will be lost). Malick78 (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian apartment bombings‎

Hello Malick78. I noticed that you removed part of Russian apartment bombings‎ article with comment "rmved one 'fact' I don't believe - that this confession is an integral part of everyone's theory of FSB involvement". You are perfectly within your rights not to believe whatever you want, but your disbelief is not a valid reason to destroy WP content. If you read Russian, you can follow link provided after the statement and see for yourself that Galkin's "confession" is still featured front and centre in the book alleging FSB involvement as of March 26, 2008. If you don't, you might want to ask Biophys to translate relevant piece for you, as his anti-FSB reputation is flawless and he can't be accused of sugarcoating facts in order to present FSB in more favourable way. All in all, "integral part" is not WP:OR or WP:POV, it is fact established in book heavily used in the article as WP:RS. RJ CG (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this user refered to me, I have to comment. He apparently tells about this your edit. First, this your edit improves English grammar. Thank you very much for doing that! Second, the claim about "integral part of the theory" is obviously OR. None of main sources (the books) tells that testimony by Galkin is so important. This is only one of many events related to the bombings; nothing more; although it was widely publicized. Thank you for removing OR.Biophys (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What is so WP:OR-ish in a statement that if event A is used in theory B, it is an integral part of it? Prominence of event A is another matter completely. Is it sole proof, or one of thousands does not matter. This is like saying that none of single bricks in building is integral to it's structural rigidity. RJ CG (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The cited secondary sources do not tell that testimony was "a cornerstone" (as in your first version) or "an integral part" of anything.Biophys (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
RJ CG, if you say it is an integral part, you are suggesting that there is little else to back the FSB-involvement claims. I doubt this: there are many other reasons to think that the FSB was involved and this is just one of many reasons. It is not the most important - which the wording which I removed suggested. It was a BIG claim, and so needs a great source or, preferably, multiple sources. Otherwise it is undue-weight, or - more likely - OR. But as I said, there are many other reasons to suspect FSB involvement so it just didn't sound accurate. Hence my removal of it. Malick78 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recognition

Thanks for recognizing my work on the John Bodkin Adams article. Little notes of encouragement go a long way.--SidP (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RUTH ELLIS

Hello Malick - In February 2008 do you remember querying the name of Ruth Ellis's son and why so many websites got it wrong? I have just added a section in connection with the 2003 Ruth Ellis Appeal. I wonder how the Evening Standard, who published an article the night before the commencement of the Appeal, got their facts so wrong!Any suggestions?Charlton1 (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi:) Thanks for that, I'll have a look at the article in a minute and try to do some work on it in the coming few weeks:) As for newspapers - small ones especially - they're prone to cutting corners and omitting to research properly... Alas. Malick78 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mallick -I am absolutely flummoxed. I had no intention of being rude. I made a change regarding Ruth Ellis's mother being a Belgian Jew, because that is the truth and clearly stated in Muriel Jakubait's book RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE. I also added a few words about Moreen Gleeson, the witness who saw Ruth Ellis on the night of the shooting of David Blakely, and how she thought Ruth was going to kill herself, which is clearly stated in RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE I see this has also been removed and I don't understand why.Charlton1 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the editor's response and thought it rather rude - and told him so on his talk page. I think he objected to the style your edit was done - you can type < ref> blah,blah </ref> rather than write in the article text where the info comes from. I'll have a go tonight sorting it out. Malick78 (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mallick. I have also added a section in the PARDON CAMPAIGN.Charlton1 (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mallick. I have also reinstated section about Moreen Gleeson which had been removed without explanation which I trust is OK.Charlton1 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mallick - I think your changes on the article are very good.Charlton1 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It's nice to be appreciated:) Thanks:) Malick78 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kot Filemon DYK

Updated DYK query On 8 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kot Filemon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4/23 DYK

Updated DYK query On 23 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Percy Hoskins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK queryPortals The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, Percy Hoskins, has been added to the Wikipedia Portals, Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Journalism. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.

-- Nice work! Cirt (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hello, Malick78. You have new messages at RyRy5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 06:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Malick78. You have new messages at RyRy5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 07:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Douthewaite

Well, I did ask someone else to review it, but no-one did. Then someone prematurely decided to dump the old hooks (this is happening rather too often lately).

I'm not really inclined to dispute that the guy is probably notable, but surely it wouldn't be that hard for you to find an entry in a dictionary of biography or something? It would give you a solid secondary source and would probably also allow you to add some detail about his life. One of the things I didn't like about the article is that even if we assume he is notable, the article is mostly about the trial again and not his actual career or achievements. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5/14 DYK

Updated DYK query On 14 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Henry Douthwaite, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 05:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence

The article probably could be expanded further from the ODNB article, which would certainly make it better than the Douthewaite article which I see you've been having some discussions about (unfortunately Douthewaite doesn't appear there). As with the Melford Stevenson article which we interacted on previously the Gazette and ODNB strongly suggest that Lawrence didn't use the name Frederick, so it might be better to move him to just Geoffrey Lawrence (thought that might clash with the Nuremberg chap). David Underdown (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I could email you a copy of the ODNB article (I don't really have time to do anymore on it at the moment), but your email doesn't seem to be activated (mine is). Looking into the disambiguation a little more, probably Geoffrey Lawrence should be turned into a disambiguation page, rather than a redirect to the other one, and the actual articles should both stay where they are, but just add something in the opening sentence to make it clear which name he actually used - ODNB places Frederick in brackets, as do some of the Gazette entries. David Underdown (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually looking at the facility to email the article from ODNB, I need to know your email to start with, so if you email via the Wikipedia facility, I'll be able to send it to you properly. On the disamiguation, there are instructions at WP:Disambiguation I think, I do it so rarely I always have to use them myself. David Underdown (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've sent you a link to the article, which should give yo free acces for 5 days. If there any problems with that, let me know, and I'll send you the full text instead. David Underdown (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Updated DYK query On 15 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edmund Hamer Broadbent

I think that the author of a book first published in the 1930s and which is still in print and available on Amazon would make him notable, don't you? Add to that the fact that he was influential enough to be the subject of a book about his life and works.

I am currently reading his book, The Pilgrim Church, and I wanted to know more about the author. The English language Wikipedia made no mention of him but at least one of the foreign language versions makes mention of him. LittleOldMe (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is I do not know enough about him and any information I've found tends to focus on what he did but gives very little detail (dates, places, solid facts etc.) Were I able, I would have added the detail. I have added a sentence about the fact that his book is still in print.
I apologise for removing the tag without properly addressing your concerns, I thought that my references were enough to show notability. I find it difficult to be professional about this when I am only an amateur. I do not write professionally and make no claim to professionalism and I appreciate any assistance and constructive criticism. Regards LittleOldMe (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cavendish Children

There seems to have been a lot of deleting and resubmitting of three additional children for the current Duke of Devonshire. Where did you get the info regarding these three additional children? Serisier (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)