Talk:Muncaster Castle

message: I added the trademark back! 0waldo 04:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop. While I appreciate your viewpoint, the trademark notice isn't relevant on this page and will be reverted. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you will probably be blocked for longer intervalls, which I don't think is in anyones interest. Henrik 04:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 0waldo, sorry, but there's no reason to keep the trademark in the article, and you're clearly getting nowhere with the re-insertions, so please give it a rest.  You're simply making it harder for anyone to take you seriously about anything.  Phr (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 0waldo, while you may have some interest for your commercial use of the word within the borders of the USA, your registration cannot overrule the fair, reasonable, traditional and legitimate use of the word in other contexts and worldwide jurisdictions, especially when the rights of usage for other purposes greatly pre-date yours. If you can't abide the thought of "Muncaster Castle" going by its ancient name without your permission, you would need to prove your claim in a British court of law. As a USA trademark registration will probably not have much weight outside your country, it might be advisable to try and register the name in the United Kingdom first, though - that is, if they will let you. But even so, I would be very surprised if you acquired anything other than an expensive education, paid for in pounds sterling. However, until such time you can point to a British court ruling that the use of the name "Muncaster Castle" (by the lord of the castle and everyone else) must be approved by you, there is no point agitating here.Bezapt 14:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Curious about the disappearance of the castle image you posted, 0Waldo, I found you've had issues with admins about your non-standard copyright notices for uploaded images. As Steven G. Johnson replied to you over at User talk:Stevenj, it really isn't that hard, simply use a standard tag for your images! If you want to record a fact in Wikipedia that a piece of software or a software company exists under the name of "muncaster", why not stop frustrating yourself with this article which has clearly nothing to do with your business product and create a new, neutral, factual article about it instead, following the accepted Wikipedia conventions? (for example: Topologika). Swimming with the current is easier than trying to swim against it; though if you choose the latter, don't blame the water for your choice! Bezapt 11:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trademark 

message: I've removed some material in the article which seemed to have been cut and pasted from http://www.visitcumbria.com/wc/muncaster-monument.htm, http://www.muncaster.co.uk/cumbria-historical-houses, and http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northwest/series1/muncaster-castle.shtml. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright material... 

message: This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do).  Laplacemat (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCHT external link 

message: while I understand reverting unsourced content, how do you say that the haunting of the castle is made up nonsense? Did you check up Episode 19 of the podcast or search up Tom Fool?  Jay 💬 15:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghosts do not exist. We should not, as an encyclopaedia, be saying they do. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not up to Wikipedia to prove or disprove ghosts. What this article should care about is whether the castle has a history of being haunted and if the castle does offer ghost hunters a chance to spend a night in  the Tapestry room. Jay 💬 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "A history of being haunted" by what if not ghosts? It may have a history of claiming to be haunted, or making money out of saps, but to say "has a history of being haunted" is to claim that hauntings are real. They aren't. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. "has a history of being haunted" means people in the past believed it to be haunted. You may rephrase it any way you want. The point is what do you want to consider as made up nonsense - is it made up by the IP editor, or you feel some things were made up by people (whether sourced or unsourced), so you do not want it in the article.  Jay 💬 15:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Has a history of being haunted" means exactly what it says, and we can't say that. You can say things about a history of ghost stories or claimed hauntings if you can find proper references, which that podcast most certainly isn't. DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I provided the search link that is not related to the podcast. On the podcast however, it may or may not be an attempt at spamming, since a search for "How haunted" on enwiki shows up multiple articles. Also see Chillingham Castle#Chillingham's ghosts and Mary King's Close#Hauntings. Jay 💬 16:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haunted