User talk:Promotor Veritatis

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------++

Hello, Promotor Veritatis, 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:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Please could you add a reference to your amendments to the Elizabeth Woodville article? Deb (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Elizabeth Woodville was changed by Promotor Veritatis (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.897448 on 2013-02-14T22:08:56+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Elizabeth Woodville with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eyesnore (pending changes) 23:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume that your edits which have not been challenged are acceptable.
"Purveyors" of Popes—ha ha ha ha ha . . . .
"Recent research has revealed . . . " — exactly the same reaction (ha ha ha ha ha . . . .)
Now there's a whole box of dots over the index.
Dear oh dear. 02:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for not signing. Eddaido (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain what you mean by ’vandalism’ and the various levels? This was barely touched on during a recent Wiki workshop and signing in not at all. What’s the point of attending such a workshop if you only get half the message? As it is I take umbrage at being lumbered with vandalism because the instructor fell down on the job. That was the whole point of attending the workshop, getting to learn the proper procedure.

And isn’t editing texts to impose a partisan point of view also vandalism? The Elizabeth Woodville page is full of it as are other history pages. What protection are you guys providing so as to ensure your readers are not gulled by misleading and mendacious statements? None at all by the looks of it. I’ve picked upon some 50 already so you should be grateful that somebody is prepared to amend where necessary and not gripe about the style; your readers deserve better.

I also take the greatest possible objection to recent comments. If your computer can’t deal with the Queen’s English you’d better upgrade it. And what’s wrong with the comment ’recent research’ since it happens to be a fact? For the record I’M the historical researcher that picked up on that information so perhaps you can understand why I feel particularly aggrieved. The whole point was to make it clear to readers that this was something that has only happened recently so what’s the problem? For the record I don’t care for malicious jokes either. A little less of the ha ha ha before I go for the brouhaha.

As it is I never commit anything to the Internet without using Word first so again what’s the problem?

So if you’re not prepared to allow me to correct the afore-mentioned inaccuracies would you have any objection if I were to ask the media to do it for me? How dare you accuse me of vandalism when others are getting away with it scot-free.

If you don’t like the comment beginning ‘recent research’ tough luck. At least I’m prepared to maintain accuracy if some of your contributors are not. Your webpage is only as good as the information contained within is accurate. Would that it were.

Promotor Veritatis (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that it can be difficult for a newcomer to get up to speed on the various guidelines that operate within wikipedia. Regardless of whether you have been mistaught, your edits won't stand if you persist in ignoring these basics. I would recommend reading some of the instructions again, including the ones I referred you to in the welcome message at the top of this page. Deb (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you check the page history, you will see that most of the earlier comments you objected to did not originate from User:Eyesnore. Deb (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my time Deb I’ve written longer letters than my comment in more than one language to people all over the world so if they didn’t have a problem what’s yours? Given other edits have gone through unchallenged I don’t buy your comment about improper edits so what’s your real beef, improper editing or the content?

If you’ve chosen to ignore my earlier warnings including something I would have thought obvious that if one uses Word first one saves it on Word and the file is entitled EW1437, you do so at your peril. What’s more if you can delete so can I as I.don’t care much for inaccuracies particularly those of a partisan bent and you Deb have stuck me as being particularly partisan If you delete my next edit then I trust you will be in a satisfactory position to explain to Arlene Okerlund -f was she who aksed me to do the update Promotor Veritatis (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Deb (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Elizabeth Woodville. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. However, three reverts is not necessarily a right; and continued "slow-motion" edit-warring can also be considered disruptive and lead to blocking as well. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been alerted to this talk page by some discussions referred to above on WP:ANI, and I'd like to offer some advice, the most important of which is just to slow down, take a deep breath, and take your hand off the "Save page" button for just a minute.

Wikipedia has a way of working that has developed over the last 10+ years, and regardless of how experienced you are in history or writing elsewhere, you really can't charge in here and make changes based on your authority without expecting some blowback from other editors. When other editors talk about reliable sources, they simply mean that everything we write has backed up somewhere else, in this case probably a set of published books. You can't just cite your own opinion or authority on things, because anyone can claim to be an expert in anything, and we've got no way of telling the real experts from the charlatans.

Let's take your first edit to Elizabeth Woodville here, where you suggest there is no evidence of her being involved in witchcraft. However, this specific paragraph is relating to somebody's portrayal of Woodville in a book. Now, you could blank the entire paragraph with an edit summary like "rm content not backed up with a reliable source", though in this instance we'd probably prefer you to tag the paragraph with {{citation needed}} as a compromise. As it stands, the paragraph has been cited to the Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1467-77, so the issue has been resolved. What you should definitely not have done here, is keep re-adding additional unsourced content after that's removed, as that is seen as disruptive and may (note, not will) get you blocked for edit warring.

All in all, I'd suggest slowing down a bit, and having a look at the teahouse, which is a place for new editors to ask questions about how Wikipedia works. Something to think about, perhaps? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read some of the advice provided. For example, you do not sign edits to article pages. You sign edits to talk pages. The rules and guidelines are many, and confusing, but exist for a reason. You will be cut slack as a new editor, but over time, you will be expected to learn how to edit properly.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, can I gently reinforce the suggestions that have been made above by editors who are uninvolved in the Elizabeth Woodville article. It's great that you have been to some hand-on training about how to contribute to Wikipedia, but that on its own does not constitute the top of the learning curve! Indeed a day or so training can only scratch the surface, especially about some of the social norms (as opposed to the technical features) of Wikipedia. One thing you will have learned on your training is the need for reliable sources which must be cited when new material is added. Your own knowledge, however expert and extensive, is not enough to support an edit and Deb was right to revert the addition. I do understand that it's frustrating when your work is reverted, but the right thing to do is to implement the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Your initial edit was bold, Deb's revert was reasonable, now the thing to do is discuss it at the talk page for the article. Both you and Deb, along with other editors to the article, need to work collaboratively to improve it - appealing to your own authority and demeaning others is not the way to persuade others to value your contributions. Please go to the article talk page, discuss the additions you'd like to make, find some reliable sources to cite and let us have the benefit of your knowledge! I will ask Deb to turn the heat down as well, and I'm going to close the discussion about you at the admin noticeboard to give you a fresh start. Please reply here if you need any help, I'll keep your page on my watchlist. All the best, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Auric but not good enough Haven't you and the rest of the Wikipedia wiseguys ever heard of the First Amendment and European Covention on Human Rights Article 10 the right to freedom of speech? And I don't care much for the way you and all the other numpties have violated MY right.

Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a private charity-funded organisation. Therefore, since it is a private organisation, the laws of freedom of speech do not apply. Rather, my interpretation of the convention would be that it allows you the freedom to set up your own wiki in competition with Wikipedia and edit it using your own thoughts and opinions without hindrance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kim Auric deleted my response to you but I still have it on Word if you wish to read it

Promotor, you made a mistake in trying to post a reply earlier - click this blue link and you'll see that what you posted in error was a few hundred lines of blank space. Auric was just tidying up. Using Word to draft Wikipedia edits is not a great idea as you can see. Instead can I suggest using your sandbox where you can draft edits and also see the effects of any Wiki markup. As a final check, pressing the "Show preview" button rather than immediately going to "Save page" will show you what your draft edit will look like. Once you have a version in your sandbox that works, you can copy and paste it to any other page you like, such as this one.

As I said, Auric wasn't trying to censor you, just to be helpful. Please don't assume that everyone here is out to get you - Wikipedia is a tricky place to get right first time and it can appear as though folks are all agin' you when all that is happening is that you are making typical newbie mistakes. Don't take the corrections as criticism, but as guidance towards correct practice. By the way, the EHCR and US Constitution don't prevail here. This is a private website and all of us edit here as a privilege, not as a right. Describing your fellow editors as numpties is also not really the best way of making collegial relationships.

So, if you need any help negotiating wiki markup or procedures and policies, please just post here. Nobody at all minds being asked questions and you'll find folks here quite helpful if approached in the right way! Oh, and don't forget to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will produce your signature. Thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in this Kim

1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

Artigo 37.º Liberdade de expressão e informação 1. Todos têm o direito de exprimir e divulgar livremente o seu pensamento pela palavra, pela imagem ou por qualquer outro meio, bem como o direito de informar, de se informar e de ser informados, sem impedimentos nem discriminações. 2. O exercício destes direitos não pode ser impedido ou limitado por qualquer tipo ou forma de censura. 3. As infracções cometidas no exercício destes direitos ficam submetidas aos princípios gerais de direito criminal ou do ilícito de mera ordenação social, sendo a sua apreciação respectivamente da competência dos tribunais judiciais ou de entidade administrativa independente, nos termos da lei. 4. A todas as pessoas, singulares ou colectivas, é assegurado, em condições de igualdade e eficácia, o direito de resposta e de rectificação, bem como o direito a indemnização pelos danos sofridos.

I don’t have a problem with this one as I speak Portuguese but if Rictchie 333 does suggest Bing Translator

As it is two earlier edits went through without challenge so why such a big deal about the third?

Sorry too that message didn’t get through that I’m not unappreciative of your efforts. Any suggestions about the third? Would you care to do the edit if I post you the information? Would have loved to post the entire genealogical table but alas that would have taken up too much space.

PV, I'm not sure what the Portuguese section is about (I understood the language, but not the point you were trying to make.) But I suspect it's not central to your editing here. What is central is the answer to questions like " I've just been asked by Wikipedia for my reference. Does being the historical researcher from hell count as one?" The answer is "no", I'm afraid. Being an expert doesn't give you any special status or allow you to make edits on your own authority. What it does do is give you familiarity with and access to the sources needed to back up your edits. I don't know anything about your topic are so I'm not going to make any edits myself. But if you'd like to run any proposed edits by me here (or preferably at the article talkpage) I'd be happy to comment on whether in principle the edit seems to be in line with Wikipedia policies. PS: on talk pages, don't forget to sign with ~~~~ which will leave your signature. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PV, I have to be blunt now. You're not going to get anywhere with this. Any edit of yours to Elizabeth Woodville that does not have something like <ref>{{cite book|last=Lewis|first=Professor F J|title=Consorts of the Mediaeval World|isbn=123456789}}</ref> in it will probably get reverted. I don't understand either what free speech laws have to do with a private organisation, or what possible effect Portuguese law would have on an organisation based in California. What I do know is, if you carry on like this, you may be blocked due to your edits being interpreted as legal threats. You really, really do not want to do this. I can't say it simpler than that. I'm really not having a go, just telling you things straight because otherwise I've got a nasty feeling I'll be looking at a bunch of declined unblock requests here in a few weeks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem Ritchie is the axe you wield is a very blunt instrument. Your really think somebody who’s had to work for exacting bosses and even more exacting clients particularly in the matter of accuracy would dare to post anything online that wasn’t 100% accurate?

Get wised up Ritchie freedom of speech not only applies to Wikipedia but anyone else in those countries where freedom of speech is legally protected. Are you so dumb as to think Wikipedia is immune in respect of the First Amendment? You really must be devoid of all sandwiches for a picnic.

Your pathetic utterances about legal threats cut no ice with me. Like anybody’s who studied Law is going to any make any such threat not that I have without ensuring first that their back is 100% covered?

So I’m calling your bluff. Go ahead punk make my day. As some guy in some film said ‘Frankly my dear I don‘t give a damn’ and frankly my dear I passed that point long ago the moment I realised that in the matter of 100% accuracy Wikipedia ain’t or in the matter of impartiality either.

Kim Isn’t the Wiccan Rede ‘ An it harm none do what thou wilt’? But how can one tell the truth without it harming someone? Veritas,veritatis Check out some Latin dictionary some time.

Promotor Veritatis (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• PV, well done for mastering the signature. For your interest, this is not the first time a new editor has raised concerns around free speech and First Amendment rights - there's a full discussion of the issue at this link. But the main issue is to get you actually editing. Please do draft up some suggested edits in your sandbox, or on the relevant article talk page and I'll be happy to comment. Yes, I understand Latin a bit and I understand what your username means. It does very slightly raise my anxiety, I have to say, because people here to promote the truth (as they see it) can sometimes find the collaborative nature of Wikipedia editing a bit tricky to negotiate. However if you have good evidence sources for your views and can learn how to cite them there'll be no problem. Now, it would be good to draw a line under the chat, as we're here to build an encyclopaedia - let's get on and do that. One final point. As Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, we don't call one another dumb, or use phrases such as "devoid of all sandwiches for a picnic" or "pathetic utterances". It's not good for the co-operative enterprise we have here. Ultimately these are personal attacks (although at this stage fairly mild ones, I concede.) But please don't continue down that road even with folks you disagree with. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you so dumb as to think Wikipedia is immune in respect of the First Amendment?" Years of experience have taught me that when somebody says I am dumb / stupid / idiotic / (insert profanity here) for not agreeing with something that they assert is true, then that thing is probably false. Have a look at this diagram and think at what level that comment sits at. WP:FREE is a good essay to read. Happy editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was a "like" button here! Deb (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated Lady Eleanor Talbot with sources If you want to argue about sources in the British or Bodleian Libraries Deb - go ahead be my guest. Let's face it you were the one who whinged first and I'm well aware why you deleted - not on the grounds of vandalism but on the grounds of content. Deletion/reversion whaever that's a game two can play.

Sory Kim but owing to the fact the edit/summary did not allow me room to quote sources it's gone on the actual page. Promotor Veritatis (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in there British or Bodleain Librfaries Deb - go ahead be m y gujest. And let's gfac it you wre the one who satatrted the nwhinging.

Thank you for your edits to the Eleanor Talbot page. I have had to revert several of them. Bombastic utterances of your own Great Authoritativeness are not helpful. Provide relevant information about any errors on the Talk page. Don't insert assertions of disagreement into the text itself. Everyone wants to improve articles. Adopting a high-handed approach just alienates other editors. Paul B (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PV, the changes you made to the article had some problems. It would have been preferable if you'd psted the draft first here or on the article talk page, then we could have picked these up. Commentary such as "deletion on the grounds of accuracy" doesn't belong in the actual visible text of the article. If you can provide the source of the material about the religious status of Lady E, I will try and incorporate it in the approved style so you can see how it's done. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – Sources mentioned:

John Ashdown-Hill. Eleanor, the Secret Queen: The Woman Who Put Richard III on the Throne.

John Ashdown-Hill. Whitefriars:The Priory of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Norwich.

Bodley Ms. 73, a collection of medieval manuscripts aka Collectanea Carmelitana, Duke Humfrey’s Library, Bodleian, Oxford

--Auric talk 12:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The subsequent discussion became very detailed and was moved to the Talk:Lady Eleanor Talbot page by me. Deb (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deb

So sorry about the problem of punctuation due not to atrophied cerebellum but an atrophied keyboard. Problem now resolved but not I fear to our mutual satisfaction.

I had a wonderful evening yesterday picking up on your digital footprints going back 11 years and now satisfied that it’s not a matter of presentation you disagree with but content. As it is there was one edit that really had me going into convulsions and that was that of Andrew Gray 12th March 2007 whose comment was ‘Reverted edits by 87.80.210 (talk) to last version by Deb (undo)’. So why should I be in so interested in Andrew Gray?. It so happens not only is he the British Library’s Wikipedian in Residence but it was his workshop I attended recently. Small world isn’t it?

As for you Paul Barlow I don’t take kindly to you high-handed approach either. After all there’s nothing any of us can do regarding an Internet malfunction. 86.190.103.79 (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information (as it looks like you haven't mastered how edit summaries work as yet), the edit to the Elizabeth Woodville article that caused you to have a seizure was where Andrew Gray (whom I'd never heard of before) reverted a vandal's edit, thus restoring an image of Elizabeth Woodville that had been removed for no reason. The reason it says "Reverted edits by 87.80.210 (talk) to last version by Deb" is because I happened to be the person who had last made an edit to the article before the vandal went into action. That's how reverting (as opposed to undoing) edits works. Deb (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Elizabeth Woodville because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Please don't add your signature to articles —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PV, regardless of the content of the edit (this is not my field, so I'm not competent to comment), you must not ever put your own signature into article space, as you did here. Signatures are mandatory (well, very strongly recommended) in talk space - anything that has the word 'talk' in the page title but prohibited in article space. Also, although as I say I can't comment on content, I can certainly observe process. You seem to again be relating to other editors in a combative and dismissive style - could you try and be more collaborative and co-operative in your edit summaries and talk page contributions? Thanks, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Elizabeth Woodville. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please read what Kim said, above. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make unconstructive edits or engage in acts of vandalism. Not my style. Promotor Veritatis (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Elizabeth Woodville shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitethief~_{talk to me}~ 22:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetiepie you must be completely devoid of all sandwiches for a picnic if you haven't reaslised that there's been an editing war going on for the last 11 years. What planet do you live on? Cloud Cuckoo Land?

Go away litle boy and play with your toys and stop trying to play the Big White Chief - it cuts no ice with me. The reverts continue until Wiki become a partisan-free zone.

Promotor Veritatis (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PV, three days ago I politely asked you to start editing more collegially. The above is not what I hoped to see. This is a formal warning that if I see you relating in this negative way to other editors again, I will block you for 24 hours. Further episodes will attract longer blocks. It is entirely possible to edit here without insulting your colleagues and I ask you to start doing so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to play God Kim – it doesn’t become you or anyone else either.

Block me for 24 hours? Are you such a blockhead that you didn’t realise that when you did you violated my right according to Article 10 of the European Human Rights Convention not to mention the First Amendment? Wiki may be a private organisation but while it maintains a public service it is not immune to public scrutiny and neither are any of the rest of you.

Promotor Veritatis (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At present I'm not going to block you for insulting other contributors as long as you keep it to your own talk page. Any more hurling of abuse on article talk pages will get you blocked for a minimum of 24 hours. Deb (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear Deb. You’ve really blown it this time. The next edit will be Queen Elizabeth’s Girls (formerly Grammar) School Barnet – live only half a mile away - and why not? It just so happens that I’m a former pupil who attended the school the same time as the actress Stephanie Beacham.

I can assure you Deb that she attended the same grammar school as me and why Wikipedia mentions a Catholic grammar school beats me. The only one for miles around is St Michaels Finchley one of the top ten in the country the very same school attended by my daughter but no chance of getting in unless one has already been brought up a Catholic.

The entry for Isobel Black is OK - she was in her final year when I was in my first - but Emma Bunton? Everything I’ve picked up on states she went straight on after primary school to the Sylvia Young Theatre School. How on earth did she turn up on the QEGS entry?

Furthermore two other pupils in my time went on to become actresses – no mention of them either. No objection if I add their names to the list? Or any other edit for that matter?

Seems we’ve gone from WikiLeaks to Wikicliques. Wow!

Promotor Veritatis (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]