Talk:Richmondshire

message: Wasn't Richmondshire a wapentake?  I'm sure I read that somewhere on Wikipedia but can't find any mention in this article.  194.203.110.127 15:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Richmondshire was a liberty made up of five wapentakes: Hallikeld, Gilling East, Gilling West, Hang East, and Hang West. Owain (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wapentake

message: This article concerns the local government district of Richmondshire.  It is probably more appropriate to put much of the detail on the areas within the district within their specific articles.  Paulleake 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted all this information. It was extraneous to this article, which is about the local government district. If it's appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia it should be in the articles about the places, not this one. Cheers, DWaterson 22:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Village/Town Descriptions

message: User:Ghmyrtle, cease and desist your flamebaiting.  You have a history of "feeding" my anger, for when you detect my legitimate presence where you see fit to revert my contributions and for all of those who do not yet know, here is for reference...Talk:English_people#I.27d_really_like_to_retire.2C_so_quit_it_Ghmyrtle_and_Snowded.  Another two on the same page:  User_talk:Theresa_knott#Indefinitely_banned_User:Yorkshirian_is_currently_engaged_in_a_total_rewrite_of_the_England_article & User_talk:Theresa_knott#User:Catterick.  For those of you who may see this, remember: WP:DENY is the doctor's advice.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may well be, he has provided some sources but they are not in-line so there is no way of knowing if the information is correct. Unfortunately there were no sources to verify the information as it stood prior to his change so may be equally reverting to a duff version. I hag tagged the article & will drop a note on his user page requesting in-line cites be provided. Keith D(talk) 12:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith D, this malefactor has pursued me in retaliation for unpleasant discussions on talk pages.  He has been warned from "feeding" my ire through wikistalking and wikilawyering, but to no avail.  He finds it amusing, so WP:DENY please.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will wait and see your responce to my request for in-line citations, so that I can verify the detail you have added to the page. Keith D (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That "person" who has flamebaited me above by trying to get you to be against me (as here just a few minutes ago), has taken quite a lot of my time in my present wikisession and I am in a present state of wikiwithdrawal.  I will be back soon to attach each and every reference to the innards of this article.  I own most of those sources and are sitting right by my computer, but some are well respected free content internet publications of public records in the UK, or old databases (e.g. in old writing, sometimes 19th century).  Thanks for not going the deep end as the flamer demanded your pitchfork and torch to aid in his lynchmob of me.  I only mean well, as you can see adeptly from the quality of my efforts in the main article space.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts in article improvement and if, as you say, verifyable in-line sourcing is provided then I will gladly allow the material to stand. Keith D(talk) 12:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How much of a "window" are you going to "give" me?  I haven't actually provided "in-line" citations more than once or twice (long ago) and now it is being requested of me by you--legitimately and some bloodletting demanded by that "other"--illegitimately.  I will do my best to figure it out, one at a time.  Some sources combine together to fit the big picture, as the topics overlap.  Obviously, this is not considered a "hot topic" of history, despite the key roles it has played in time.  There is much more I hadn't considered adding until today, from the internet sources, and will also add those in time, inline references likewise supplied.  Please don't let this article get bogged down into a hatefest of reverts by the libel-factory above, for that is what seems to be the distinct possibility, considering it has already been tainted by this behaviour not even 24 hours yet.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As the sources are to hand then a couple of days should be enough to crack-it, I may leave it a week if progress is being made. Keith D (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I am sorry but I am unsure what you are getting at here. All I am requesting is that for each fact / item in the text that you have inserted into the article you tell us the source for that fact by putting in to the text a  template indicating the source of the fact. For example if you found the fact "At the terminus of Scandinavian York, there was a local bout of rebellion in Stainmore, with the death of Eric Bloodaxe" on a web site all you need is to insert into the text after the full stop . obliously replacing the bits in <> by the relevant detail. As you have entered the information then you must know where it came from unless it is original research. I can tidy things up later if the information is there. Keith D (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sorry", for avoiding all the issues central to the article and instead, issuing a vague demand for a WP:wikilawyer and WP:Exclusionism policy, when I follow WP:IAR and WP:Inclusionism on a habitual basis?  You are inconveniently put in between two feuding editors and will make your stand with whoever is most positive to you?  You see how he dropped from sight and left you to deal with me, having set a red herring in motion to put you at discomfort, "fed to the wolves", knowing it would make me mad and you harmed?  You don't respond to my assessment of the situation, only his demands, like a pet.  You have much to learn in the world, if you are so willing to be used like this.  Sorry, but I don't find any admirable quality in your form of dithering here and polite "sorrow".  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look either you provide sources, or it gets deleted from the article. Insulting the person who is trying to with with you here will not help you find those references. Theresa Knott |  token threats 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my fault you don't know the definition of a source, nor my fault that you refuse to accept the ones given you, nor my fault that you go out of your way to be difficult, when similar circumstances exist all across Wikipedia and without complaint. It is an ad hominem approach in my case, for the other editors who have done the same thing, are not accounted as public enemies. But go on ahead and play in your dream world, that I will never fit inside your perfect expectations. You are the insulting one here, for augmenting an unreasonable demand. Oh these gang-ups are so familiar. You have still to ban me for being the monster Ghmyrtle claims I am. Looking for something else to hold against me? Go ahead and continue debasing my contributions. All of you are off-topic trolls in the extreme; perhaps I should follow WP:DENY. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I am going out of my way here to try and help you to add valid contributions to the article. If you spend less time in producing long essays on talk pages and actually doing that which I have requested of you then some progress can be made. We do not need extra material at the moment just citations for that which you have added. I do not really want to revert out or block you but those options are available. Keith D (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested restructuring to better help citations and perhaps trimming down some parts (such as religious or political preferences in the past), which don't seem to help the article as much as the specific elements I named above, elements referenced by sources you so requested. You are obviously not paying attention to the idea of better serving this article and Wikipedia as a consequence. If you had been paying attention and truly been interested in the subject we are supposed to be discussing, you would see that. As it is, you are more concerned with foisting some kind of "grammar nazi" level of interest in the article and nothing more or less.  This indifference to the actual content is rather unhelpful. I myself do not believe the focus I have brought to certain subtopics is of proper proportion, which indicates that I am willing to change the article for the better. Doubtless, the presently listed sources will remain in force. At the same time, I believe your demand for inline citation is unwarranted and only occasioned by others' personal dislike of me. Inline citations are not a universal principal at Wikipedia. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troll edit warrior 

message: I know next to nothing about the history of Richmondshire, but User:Catterick is a known "eccentric", at best, and I doubt whether any of his text is true, let alone verifiable.  Would it not be better to put the article back as it was prior to his involvement? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may well be, he has provided some sources but they are not in-line so there is no way of knowing if the information is correct. Unfortunately there were no sources to verify the information as it stood prior to his change so may be equally reverting to a duff version. I hag tagged the article & will drop a note on his user page requesting in-line cites be provided. Keith D(talk) 12:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith D, this malefactor has pursued me in retaliation for unpleasant discussions on talk pages.  He has been warned from "feeding" my ire through wikistalking and wikilawyering, but to no avail.  He finds it amusing, so WP:DENY please.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will wait and see your responce to my request for in-line citations, so that I can verify the detail you have added to the page. Keith D (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That "person" who has flamebaited me above by trying to get you to be against me (as here just a few minutes ago), has taken quite a lot of my time in my present wikisession and I am in a present state of wikiwithdrawal.  I will be back soon to attach each and every reference to the innards of this article.  I own most of those sources and are sitting right by my computer, but some are well respected free content internet publications of public records in the UK, or old databases (e.g. in old writing, sometimes 19th century).  Thanks for not going the deep end as the flamer demanded your pitchfork and torch to aid in his lynchmob of me.  I only mean well, as you can see adeptly from the quality of my efforts in the main article space.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts in article improvement and if, as you say, verifyable in-line sourcing is provided then I will gladly allow the material to stand. Keith D(talk) 12:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How much of a "window" are you going to "give" me?  I haven't actually provided "in-line" citations more than once or twice (long ago) and now it is being requested of me by you--legitimately and some bloodletting demanded by that "other"--illegitimately.  I will do my best to figure it out, one at a time.  Some sources combine together to fit the big picture, as the topics overlap.  Obviously, this is not considered a "hot topic" of history, despite the key roles it has played in time.  There is much more I hadn't considered adding until today, from the internet sources, and will also add those in time, inline references likewise supplied.  Please don't let this article get bogged down into a hatefest of reverts by the libel-factory above, for that is what seems to be the distinct possibility, considering it has already been tainted by this behaviour not even 24 hours yet.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As the sources are to hand then a couple of days should be enough to crack-it, I may leave it a week if progress is being made. Keith D (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from Keith D's talk page 

message: Keith D, I have begun here, but the prospect of composing all of this is extremely daunting. Couldn't we just have a basic rundown of the Richmondshire district, with terse summaries (history: secular, castles and ecclesiastic, churches; economy and customs) and provide a repository of further reading and websites? I share a passion of the antiquarians, but my fingers and hands are tired, so I'm afraid I might get carpal-tunnel syndrome or something similar. Frankly, I'm much less interested in the specifics of this article, because I can read them in the above-mentioned books and websites. Of course, if you wish to flesh it out and make it look nice, I have no objection, but please don't make it steeped in WP:RECENT (which was the whole reason I involved myself in the first place). There is an obvious wealth of background to this district, before the 1830s and onto the present. I understand our best kept records date from this period, but it's usually not very interesting...you know, "hum-drum"?  Apart from the structuring of the district into three periods and coverage of the archdeaconry (which has very scattered online sources; it was once larger than Richmondshire itself, according to British History Online, but since the 19th century, seems to have shrunken to its namesake, the latter info according to GenUKI) and the Monasteries (Savigniacs/ex-Fors-become-Jervaulx, Cistercians and Augustinians/Coverham, etc), I have no lasting interest for the future life of this article. On the other hand, I would be dismayed to see it suffer by mishandling and a witch-hunt about my character ("eccentric"). Here are the three basic incorporations of this district:
*Britannic (what exact Roman territorial division?) "Cataractonium": Site of the Battle of Catterick and like Brythonic Cumbria, having been part of Hen Ogledd. It may be why the archdeaconry originally consisted of areas north of the Ribble and south of the Diocese of Carlisle, rather than facing further east of the Pennines--it appears this district has always hugged the fells and dales. You can see this arrangement here, under the Henrician-newborn Diocese of Chester, after once being part of the generic Diocese of York. (Wow--I was going to give you a weblink, but it appears some lovely editor has provided their own images of the archdeaconry, even of its subdivisions!)
*Mercian "Gillingshire": the only sources I have seen are about Edwin, Earl of Mercia in particular, ceasing to exist at his death. None of them, apart from the Registrum Honoris de Richmond by the esteemed Roger Gale, would have any real insight into this. I admit to having no access to that manuscript, which is dated to 1722 and costs a fortune to purchase. Nevertheless, a simple search of Google with the term "Gillingshire", shall be enough to prove this is not a hoax, despite the paucity of results.  I intend to do some more reading on Mercia because of this, but I don't really know what to expect.
*Breton "Richmondshire": founded by Alan Rufus, son of Eudes, Count of Penthievre...supposed to have trailed in lineal descent until Francis II of Brittany, but the Crown took possession since the War of Breton Succession and bestowed it upon the House of Lancaster, through whom all subsequent holders of Richmond have been connected, until this day. You will find an inexhaustable number of sources about these facts anywhere and everywhere you choose to look, although it is embarassing how ignorant the label "Norman" is usually put in place of Breton.  On my sandbox, linked to you above, it has selections of Introduction references to Richmondshire and notes by the author.  It is the same publication by Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life & Thought.  This book has within, information about what the "Land of Count Alan" consisted of, in the formation of Richmondshire.  Originally, there were apparently two wapentakes of Gilling and Hang.  Paul Dalton, like myself, is convinced that whilst Gilling is self-explanatory, "Hang" was based at Catterick.  Iam conveying nothing contradictory to his words.  Thus, as you see, the incarnations of Catterick, Gilling and Richmond all deserve discussion in this article, as the district is coterminus and successive to prior establishments bearing the names Catterick and Gilling.  If some like "Ghmyrtle" wish to call me "eccentric", then he/she/they should explain what is in fact, "eccentric" about what it is I have put, for it is entirely within the scope of my sources.  I have provided many, but nobody has addressed anything in particular which they choose to disagree with.  In fact, what either of you may find legitimately wrong with what was put, is a mystery.  You hide the specifics of your objections so well.  What am I supposed to do, bang my head on the wall in trying to figure out what it is you find hard to believe, even despite therespectable sources, which are nonetheless, put into the article in the references section without in-line treatment?  This is the custom on countless articles, yet the demand is only made of me because of Ghmyrtle's witch hunt lobby.  Refute that if you can and you won't, because you probably don't want to make Ghmyrtle mad at you too.
**Even though I had seen the Edwin factor listed several times in reference to Richmond, I had simply assumed that all of the North was Northumbrian, especially due to its history of being attacked by Robert the Bruce and many other Scots, over and over again. Instead, the orientation westwards with not only the archdeaconry, the Chester diocese, Chester itself is a palatine county held in conjunction with the Principality of Wales and Duchy of Cornwall, the Rheged period and the Offa's Dyke factor of Mercia, the Breton possession and how the Duke of Richmond and Lennox (Lennox being the heart of Dun Briton aka Dumbarton, also on the west coast, via Clydesdale) became Earl of March, of the Welsh kind, despite the Stuarts' supposed "Scottish" and "Gaelic" nature (the present genealogy of their clan goes not to the famed Banquo of Lochaber, but a certain FitzAlan family of the Welsh Marches, invited under David). The North, apparently, doesn't always mean Scottish in the tribal context. Nor does the "simple" fact of Richmondshire's geographic position in the Kingdom of England mean that it is "Anglo-Saxon" or "pure Teutonic", especially, when combined with the other factors, the orientation of this district is with the Irish Sea and not the North Sea. The idea that all territory "in England" is 100% "Teutonic English" sounds like repulsive bigotry, but it is a simple fact of history that this is an atypical district with other inclinations than such places as East Anglia, Kent or Wessex and only a marginal identification with Northumbria. Where does Northumbrian history mention "Gillingshire"? Well, its only recorded links being with Mercia speaks for itself, doesn't it?
**Incidentally, I have no interest in pushing either a religious or political agenda with this article in respect to district history, for you will find John Wycliffe, Myles Coverdale, John Knox's wife was daughter of a Mr. Bowes and his wife a daughter of the Askes, who were opposed to Knox, as well as the other leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace and Rising of the North here, including the only Richmondshire man to acquire any fame or fortune overseas (apart from a certain Baron Metcalfe in India), George Calvert the founder of Avalon in Newfoundland and Maryland, both as havens for Catholics. On the other hand, Albion's Seed has maps of locations, including Richmondshire, but more generally across the Pennines and into Wales, Quaker communities, which were behind the colonisation of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. You will find Lancastrians and Yorkists both in Richmondshire, as well as other kinds of people in opposition, anti-Tudors & Stuarts and pro-Tudors & Stuarts, but all of them characteristically anti-Scottish because of how they've been treated by that nation (yes, the Scots claim otherwise). Perhaps one striking thing about the district, is its ability to avoid categorisation as "one or the other" and no, I don't mean to be inserting "via media" ideology about the spiritual disposition either. Maybe that is why the current MP council for Richmond has the alignment the way it does, nominally "Conservative" but generally independent and non-aligned...
**I'm real sorry I don't really have the patience to stick with this, with somebody else breathing down my neck and getting an admin to do the same, even though I swore to not let him drive me away before--I have left because of him, not once or even as low as twice. You of course, are free to do what you wish, since I make no claim of WP:OWN, but please don't let it fall into the hands ofUser:Ghmyrtle. I trust your abilities and interest are well conceived and intentioned (even if it seems myopic to the cause of late 20th and early 21st century political conditions), but his intervention in this matter was to attack something I put much effort into, hot on my trail from previous excursions. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Policies of harrassment don't seem to be in force. I must keep this in mind, especially when people online can be so unpredictable, but even more so when I have come into contact with those whose aims are irrational and nefarious, repeating their hostility in a recognisable pattern. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but I am unsure what you are getting at here. All I am requesting is that for each fact / item in the text that you have inserted into the article you tell us the source for that fact by putting in to the text a  template indicating the source of the fact. For example if you found the fact "At the terminus of Scandinavian York, there was a local bout of rebellion in Stainmore, with the death of Eric Bloodaxe" on a web site all you need is to insert into the text after the full stop . obliously replacing the bits in <> by the relevant detail. As you have entered the information then you must know where it came from unless it is original research. I can tidy things up later if the information is there. Keith D (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sorry", for avoiding all the issues central to the article and instead, issuing a vague demand for a WP:wikilawyer and WP:Exclusionism policy, when I follow WP:IAR and WP:Inclusionism on a habitual basis?  You are inconveniently put in between two feuding editors and will make your stand with whoever is most positive to you?  You see how he dropped from sight and left you to deal with me, having set a red herring in motion to put you at discomfort, "fed to the wolves", knowing it would make me mad and you harmed?  You don't respond to my assessment of the situation, only his demands, like a pet.  You have much to learn in the world, if you are so willing to be used like this.  Sorry, but I don't find any admirable quality in your form of dithering here and polite "sorrow".  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look either you provide sources, or it gets deleted from the article. Insulting the person who is trying to with with you here will not help you find those references. Theresa Knott |  token threats 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my fault you don't know the definition of a source, nor my fault that you refuse to accept the ones given you, nor my fault that you go out of your way to be difficult, when similar circumstances exist all across Wikipedia and without complaint. It is an ad hominem approach in my case, for the other editors who have done the same thing, are not accounted as public enemies. But go on ahead and play in your dream world, that I will never fit inside your perfect expectations. You are the insulting one here, for augmenting an unreasonable demand. Oh these gang-ups are so familiar. You have still to ban me for being the monster Ghmyrtle claims I am. Looking for something else to hold against me? Go ahead and continue debasing my contributions. All of you are off-topic trolls in the extreme; perhaps I should follow WP:DENY. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I am going out of my way here to try and help you to add valid contributions to the article. If you spend less time in producing long essays on talk pages and actually doing that which I have requested of you then some progress can be made. We do not need extra material at the moment just citations for that which you have added. I do not really want to revert out or block you but those options are available. Keith D (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested restructuring to better help citations and perhaps trimming down some parts (such as religious or political preferences in the past), which don't seem to help the article as much as the specific elements I named above, elements referenced by sources you so requested. You are obviously not paying attention to the idea of better serving this article and Wikipedia as a consequence. If you had been paying attention and truly been interested in the subject we are supposed to be discussing, you would see that. As it is, you are more concerned with foisting some kind of "grammar nazi" level of interest in the article and nothing more or less.  This indifference to the actual content is rather unhelpful. I myself do not believe the focus I have brought to certain subtopics is of proper proportion, which indicates that I am willing to change the article for the better. Doubtless, the presently listed sources will remain in force. At the same time, I believe your demand for inline citation is unwarranted and only occasioned by others' personal dislike of me. Inline citations are not a universal principal at Wikipedia. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  updates 

message: The history section from paragraph 2 onwards needs a thorough revision. Most of the facts as they stand can be verified but they are redundant to the thread of the article. IMO the best plan seems to be to cut the text and start again rather than try to sort out this convoluted thread. This is what I intend to do unless there are any serious objections.--Harkey (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the text was added by User:Catterick (aka User:Lord Loxley, User:Kenneth Alansson, etc. etc.) who has now been indefinitely blocked.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Substituted at 04:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richmondshire. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028030835/http://www.richmondshire.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=30407 to http://www.richmondshire.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=30407
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified