Talk:Cunninghamhead Estate

message: This article has been the subject of an intensive rewrite. Previously a number of subjective and inappropriate personal statements were made, despite having been previously removed. Any repetition will be referred to Wikipedia for advice and action. Rosser Gruffydd 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article contents

message: This article has been attacked again. Please log in and allow a discussion over your actions. Rosser Gruffydd 06:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The person repeatedly adding inappropriate comments must simply keep personal comments off this site. Wikipedia is not a 'chat' forum for venting personal feelings about 'The Stables'. Please keep comments factual and relevant. Rosser Gruffydd 07:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stables

message: I have protected this article because of WP:BLP violations. We cannot use someone's personal comments in the article. Anything in the article should be sourced or potentially sourced by verifiable and reliable sources according to WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. If no consensus as to content is reached here in the next week or two, and it appears that the BLP violations are going to continue, I'll take whatever action I see fit at that point. Note that our BLP policy also applies to talk pages, and any continued violation of that will lead to protection of the talk page. If the offender is using more than one IP address I can simply semi-protect the talk page to stop IPs. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: The stables section is the main area of difficulty. I feel that my version is factually descriptive and makes no subjective comments. I used the older version of the article to inform my extensive update of the whole article. I will of course alter anything that is wrong. Please let me know and I will deal with it asap - depending on Dougweller's decision. Please appreciate that any comments that might put off a potential purchaser of The Stables could have legal implications. I look forward to hearing from you. Rosser Gruffydd 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress and compromise

message: If this were applied to this article much of the material would have to be deleted as there is no references.
I look forward to applying this rule.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.113.137 (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Original Research. 

message: The history of this article is that it is one of four that was created from an original which had been split up by another contributor and became seperated from many of its references. This will take an hour or so to fix. Let me know what the errors are and they can be quickly corrected at the same time. You will see that much of the more recent changes are from the Wiki-acceptable sections of your and others (?) work. 
Please do not add personal comments to the other open access Cunninghamhead sites - such as the old railway station. If you have a personal dispute with your neighbour then Wikipedia is not the place to vent feelings. 
Let me know what reference books you are using. I will endeavour to borrow copies of anything I don't have to cover any perceived lack of local knowledge. Thanks. Rosser Gruffydd 19:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a problem. One of our basic policies, WP:VERIFY, says " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."  Oral sources can't be used. 'MacDonald, Ian (2006).' is impossible to verify - an oral source, a book, what? And unless the 'private papers' are publicly accessible and it is clear in the reference where they are, they can't be used either. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Don't bother, Books LLC republishes our articles, and we can't use our articles as references. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Here's some homework for you, go and find the Gardener's cottage!   As for next issue, look at the bits you've deleted.   Start anywhere you like.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.162.186 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: A fundamental problem here seems to be with what Wikipedia is for. What Wikipedia is not, is a newspaper. Discussing everyday events is more the territory of 's1kilmaurs' - a person would however also leave themselves wide open to legal action and the editors wouldn't accept strongly negative and unnecessary criticism. Rosser Gruffydd 17:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your quote is from WP:Recentism and needs to be taken into context with the rest of that essay (not a guideline, let alone policy). Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Wikipedia

message: Nothing deleted, only rewritten with necessary edits. Lets tackle 'The Stables' next. No personal references, just relevant facts. Also - Signing your posts on talk pages, both in the article and non-article namespaces, is a good practice, and facilitates discussion by helping identify the author of a particular comment. Other users can then navigate to a talk page and address their comments to the specific, relevant user(s). Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing, because it helps all users to understand the progress and evolution of a work. Rosser Gruffydd 20:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise and progress

message: And you were doing so well! Rosser Gruffydd 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate Personal Reference