Talk:Charles Algernon Parsons

message: What say we put a stop to this squabbling and act in a collaborative fashion? The article is becoming bloated with refinement after refinement and implicit claims about Parsons's nationality. Some are crowbarred in, dragging with them things that are scarcely relevant to the topic of the man himself. I can find no requirement that nationality be included in the infobox. If there is such a rule, it is applied with spectacular inconsistency. And, of course, Wikipedia can't be offered in support anyway.
The situation is not helped by the complicated political evolution of the British Isles over many centuries (and it shows little sign of becoming less so).
Let's just leave out all views, interpretations, verdicts, etc that are pointlessly contentious. Let us simply describe Parsons's circumstances and let the reader come to his/her own decision, assuming that he/she thinks the matter important enough.
Let all claims, real or imagined, to ownership of Algernon be renounced. I have offered a form of words that I hope will improve the article. It will be instructive to see who cannot bring themselves to accept this step towards resolution of the dispute.
:Er, WP:MOSBIO, we include nationality in the lead. As for infoboxes, no real guide for usage there as there is consensus that they may or may not be used themselves in articles. As per WP:RS we use what is sourced. The fact that one editor cannot except this is no reason to leave it out, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IDLI are both very relevant to the situation. Murry1975 (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexandrian Solution. 

message: Er, It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was.
I think we can draw our own conclusions about the motives, anyway. When additional and relevant sourced information (remember - "As per WP:RS we use what is sourced") is removed without explanation, and ambiguous pronouns restored, amongst other things, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the aim of the editor is not to improve the article, but something else. The removal of a book from the bibliography - the only actual book connected with the subject - is similarly difficult to justify.
To quote Murry1975 again, "the fact that one editor cannot except this is no reason to leave it out." It seems that we have difficulty in deciding to which editor that applies. In the early stages of these discussions, Murry1975 had my sympathies, especially in view of the decidedly idiosyncratic views of some of his opponents. Sadly, that is no more. I have attempted to improve this article in line with the "principles" of Wikipedia, and have provided explanations of the changes I have made. I am eager to read Murry1975's explanation for his reversal. Edith Waring (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit was poor, pipelink clear links adding a book which isnt by or primarily about the subject. Read WP:MOS and WP:LINKING for the further help you need. Rm book gain, bot cleaned up the links already. Murry1975 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

text: The book is not a helpful edition, if it is explain before re-addding. Murry1975 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by Murry1975, April 18th, 2015. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Charles Algernon Parsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225130458/http://www.birrcastle.com:80/inventionsAndExperiments.asp to http://www.birrcastle.com/inventionsAndExperiments.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100324095152/http://royalsociety.org:80/Lists-of-Royal-Society-Fellows-1660-2007/ to http://royalsociety.org/Lists-of-Royal-Society-Fellows-1660-2007/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Charles Algernon Parsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225130458/http://www.birrcastle.com:80/inventionsAndExperiments.asp to http://www.birrcastle.com/inventionsAndExperiments.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225130458/http://www.birrcastle.com:80/inventionsAndExperiments.asp to http://www.birrcastle.com/inventionsAndExperiments.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Charles Algernon Parsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225130458/http://www.birrcastle.com:80/inventionsAndExperiments.asp to http://www.birrcastle.com/inventionsAndExperiments.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The ongoing edit war about whether Anglo-Irish should be used or British to describe Parsons comes down to the definition of Anglo-Irish. According to Anglo-Irish people, it is a social class rather than a nationality. Therefore British (or perhaps Irish) would be the correct nationality and Anglo-Irish is correctly used in the Biography section. Dabbler (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are 4RR edit-warring to remove "Anglo-Irish" from the lead, not just from the infobox. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit War

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Algernon Parsons. 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/20080110063209/http://www.universityscience.ie/pages/scientists/sci_charles_parsons.php to http://www.universityscience.ie/pages/scientists/sci_charles_parsons.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314213318/http://www.newcomen.com/excerpts/turbinia/index.htm to http://www.newcomen.com/excerpts/turbinia/index.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) 02:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified