Talk:Thomas Prence

message: On Sarah Palin's connection:
Ancestry.com was only printing the research results of three leading genealogical authorities: Tom Brown, William Reitwiesner, and Gary Boyd Roberts. All three researchers cited birth, death and census records, as permissible by law, pointing back to accepted printed earlier genealogies.
The material was compiled by Robert Battle and Michael Hurdle, and was extracted from Mr. Battle's webpages at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/palin.htm and http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/heath.htm.
Extensive source documentation can be found on those webpages.
--Dranster (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry

message: You can find a transcript of Thomas Prence's will in the magazine Mayflower Descendant, p. 3:203, and probably innumerable other places. In it, he clearly names his wife as Mary. Now since his second wife was Mary, it was either her, or if he did have a third wife (Apphia Quick), then it was another Mary, a fourth wife.An article in the same magazine, p. 6:230, explains why his fourth wife is identified as Mary, widow of Thomas Howes. In some ways, the evidence supporting Mary (---) Howes as his last wife is stronger than the evidence supporting Apphia Quick as a third wife, since the relationship of Thomas Prence to Apphia's son Samuel Freeman that is used to justify her inclusion, has been explained in other feasible ways by Frederick Freeman in the Freeman Genealogy, p. 351. Wjifkri (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Married four times, not three 

message: Hi,
I changed the birth year in the infobox to 1600 to match what the article says.  The article cites a source that has 1600, so that seemed to be the better of the two options (previously the infobox said 1599).  Does anyone have a more reliable source? 
--Nemilar (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Added two more references. Mugginsx (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth year 

message: Since Mugginsx seems to want to have a detailed discussion about one small paragraph of text, let it be here.  The sentences at issue:
:In 1632 Prence moved from Plymouth to Duxbury and then in 1644 to Eastham, which he helped found. In 1663 he moved back to Plymouth.
This paragraph was claimed by Mugginsx to be an "overview and therefore not redundant".  This assertion is problematic for a number of reasons:
*The paragraph was not an overview in this version, after which I added more detailed material on his residences.  (In fact, these edits began with a move of this paragraph to a more chronologically useful place.)
*The paragraph does not introduce, summarize, or overview the material in the immediately following paragraph, which is on a subject having nothing to do with Prence's residences.
*Overviews are also not generally necessary; this is what WP:LEAD is for.  Overviews shouldn't be needed, especially for comparatively minor items like someone's residences.  With this sentence present, Prence's move to Plymouth in the 1860s is mentioned no less than three times, and his other residences twice; this is clearly redundant.
Perhaps Mugginsx can give a reasoned response why it should be retained in that specific location. I am prepared to defer to commentary and consensus from outside editors on this matter. Magic♪piano 15:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Kettle:  I just cannot keep up with you.  First, you are on my talk page, if I move it to the article talk page, you wiped it off.  I restore it, you re-factor and re-page it. see"Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines  NOW, you are starting off on my talk page and continuing the discussion here on the article talk page.  What's an editor to do to keep up with you?   Arguing with you is a big waste of time, perhaps you have Control Issues, or are a frustrated writer?  I am a content editor.  I did alot of work on this page.  You tend to be a drive-by editor.  Both are fine, but in your drive bys, you give no guidelines when you revert others work.  I do NOT have to give a guideline when I make an original edit - YOU, on the other hand should give a guideline when you REVERT.  See:wp:zero-revert policy Mugginsx (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

text: It's very simple.  This discussion is about the content of this article, while what's on your talk page is a discussion of editing behavior.  Now, I actually gave some reasons here why I thought the above paragraph unnecessary.  Will you substantively address them or continue to bang on policy?  (And please stop misusing the word "revert".  It has a specific meaning, and does not represent what happens when another editor changes "your" work.) Magic♪piano 15:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I will answer you very simply.  You had no reason to revert it.  You cannot Control everyone else's valid edits which is what you try to do, not only on this article but the many you drive by. Not wasting anymore time with you, if you continue to ignore Wikipedia guidelines I will go to an administrator with it all, not just the recent revert. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I spent a whole paragraph giving reasons to modify "your" sentences.  (And by the way, cool it with the drive by remarks.  WP:APR, WP:CIVIL, etc.)   If you think I'm running afoul behaviorally, please call in an administrator NOW; don't wait. Magic♪piano 15:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen to your reasons.  They are all determined by YOU - not guidelines, not anything but what You think the article should look like and where everything should be, etc.  You know nothing about collaboration.  As for insults, I overlooked a bunch of yours to try to make peace.  That is why I won't respond to your latest comments.  Your comments are not routed in wikipedia policy but in your opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I said above I was prepared to listen to your reasons why the paragraph should stay where it is.  You seem to have this idea that once you write the sentence, it is inviolate.  This isn't true.  I have an opinion (yes, it's an opinion, not a guideline, or a policy) that this paragraph is at best misplaced, and mostly unnecessary, and supported it by the idea that, just perhaps, the writing in this article would be improved by its removal.  Editors do this all the time on other articles (including ones I've worked on), without nearly this much tempest.  Why is this such a big deal to you? (I repeat the offer to bring in an outside copyeditor for guidance.) Magic♪piano 16:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The only editor that needs guidance here is you.  I collaborated with you and you did not even notice.  I put the contested information, which was fine where it was, into the Lead, as you suggested, to save my time which I consider important on Wikipedia.  Now call in whomever you want.  I would love to show him all of your guideline violations, your insults, included the ones you deleted, along with my information, your re-factoring, your bragging about doing "hundreds of good and featured articles" when a cursory view will show that many editors, not just you, helped to make those articles what they are.  I am through with you.  I do not intend to spend all of my time arguing with you. Mugginsx (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  On being overly repetitive 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thomas Prence. 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/20070215045321/http://www.pilgrimhall.org/governors.htm to http://www.pilgrimhall.org/governors.htm
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) 10:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified