![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 3, 2019 and August 3, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Please forgive my ignorance, but could someone provide a transalation of the Latin? Epeeist smudge 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, cites are better than lacks thereof. If the EB9 is actually wrong about something, make a note of it and have a better source to justify it. If there are newer sources to replace it, by all means do so. But we shouldn't leave things uncited or claim that the text comes from the EB11 when it's simply copied over from the earlier edition. — LlywelynII 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
As noted, the EB9 does appear to have been mistaken in making him an MP, but it's worth bringing up that error since it might appear elsewhere & should be dealt with. (If anything, more thoroughly. Where'd they get the idea?) — LlywelynII 15:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Kindly take it to the talk page after reviewing WP:RS and WP:CITE. The EB9 more than qualifies as source for a 18th-century literary figure. They do seem to have been mistaken in naming him as an MP, but that mistake itself is worth noting. (There seems to be more to it: they go into the detail that his father-in-law purportedly bankrolled his campaign. That probably came from somewhere other than just the top of their heads.) If you have newer sources to replace the EB9 cites, by all means use them. But, no, you don't just revert 1k of sourced content without reason. Note some objections to the new content and have sources to replace them with; don't simply remove cites in favor of nothing or pretending the EB11 material was original. — LlywelynII 15:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Christopher Anstey. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)