This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Charlesdrakew. I have tried to improve the wikipedia article on Okara District, Pakistan about the history of different Pakistani tribes living in the region. I have met personally to the people of Okara. I am alos trying to get a source to give as a refrence. Please don't remove my provided information next time. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.V.1122 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not improving anything by adding discredited old myths. I will remove any you add.--Charles (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the Glyndebourne page. What do you think the best way of distinguishing between Glyndebourne the opera company and Glyndebourne the manor house? We thought it would be best to merge them as a lot of content is duplicated, but perhaps we should have a page for Glyndebourne Opera and Glyndebourne Manor House?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.34.146 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds reasonable. I reverted your edits only because it is usual to propose a merge and allow time for other editors to comment if they wish before doing it. You can find details on how to do this at WP:Merge. I am concerned by your comment "We thought it would be best" as it suggests you may be an organisation rather than an indivdual. If you are working for Glyndebourne you need to read our pages on WP:Conflict of interest.--Charles (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Charles,

I am something of a novice at this, as will already be obvious, and would therefore like some help! A few years ago I attempted to make significant changes to the entry for Christ Church, Harrogate. These were later removed on the grounds that I had used copyright material. In fact it was material I had written for the website of the church (of which I was then vicar). I found no easy way forward, so that entry has remained partial and inaccurate. If you could advise me how to change that, I would be grateful.

More recently I have tried to make some significant changes to the entry for Chelmsford Cathedral, of which I am now Dean. The current entry is both partial and inaccurate. You are aware of the changes I tried to make, and again it would be useful to know how to address this. One concerned the list of schools that the cathedral was said to have active links with. No references were cite for this and I knew as the head of this community that the list was at best inaccurate and mostly wholly wrong. But then my changes were removed because I didn't cite references either! I would be very grateful if you could let me know what references I could cite - our links with local schools are informal and wide ranging, and not written down anywhere, but - cited or not - it would be good to see a less misleading version of the list in the article.

The other bit that was removed was the reference to the Covenant between Chelmsford Cathedral and Brentwood Cathedral. This is an active and important part of our lives, and I have the formal covenant documents in front of me. But I do not know how these can easily be cited in Wikipedia (" on clergy vestry wall in both cathedrals" doesn't sound terribly convincing, but maybe that is what is needed!)

I would be grateful for any advice.

Nicholas

Nicholas Henshall Dean of Chelmsford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frnjh (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas. I suppose we regular editors tend to get our hackles up when we see someone editing a subject to which they are closely related. We have to deal with POV-pushing, conflict of interest and self-promotion on a daily basis. In this case it is a good idea to propose on the talk page of the article what you want to do. Fill in the edit summary box to explain what you are doing when changing the article. The article certainly needs a lot of improvement. If there is unsourced incorrect material chop it out. Just make sure that what you add has reliable sources. Sometimes we just have to leave stuff out if sources can't be found. Wikipedia is a work in progress and we can wait for sources to become available. There may be articles about the links you mention in local newspapers or the Church Times perhaps? What none of us are allowed to do is write from our personal knowledge without published sources. You could probably have used your church's website as a reference (depending on the context) if you had rewritten the material to avoid closely paraphrasing the source material, thus avoiding any copyright issues. You could also follow the advise on your talkpage on how to licence the source for re-use under a creative commons license.--Charles (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Charles - that is really helpful, and probably explains why so many of the Cathedral and church entries come over as lob sided, as I suspect that most of them are written by insiders who get their material removed. I guess I could pass this over to our communications officer, who is much more of an insider than I am, but who would cover their tracks more effectively! I'll work on the stuff to do with the Covenant, but I will have to leave the almost wholly inaccurate list of schools because there is nothing written down at all - apart from the Cathedral Schools we have no formal relationships with any schools, which is why I tried to remove the list in the first place! Nicholas Frnjh (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I will remove the list.--Charles (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Charles - thanks for message.

The citation referenced is effectively a Wikipedia citation citing Wikipedia: "According to Wikipedia and a few more reliable sources, a Catholic priest called Father Harry Clarke saw one while on holiday in Canada and recognised a good way to raise funds for his church in Stockport. That was in the Seventies, and he could hardly have known that he was starting a custom that in time would eclipse the venerable British jumble sale."

The only reason I checked this 'fact' was I heard Andy Peters mentioning it on tv this morning - as a Canadian I had never heard this piece of Canadiana before so I decided to check. The trail led straight to Wikipedia and a citation citing Wikipedia - a bit of a revolving door experience.

It is quite absurd to suggest there are more reliable sources than Wikipedia and not mention them.

Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaldricksBrother (talk • contribs) 10:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. I will take a look later.--Charles (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Charles,

I have only just now seen that on 18 November 2013 you omitted my edit to the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk entry in which I added a link to my recently-published book (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk&oldid=582239744&diff=prev).

"Conflict of Interest" was given as a reason. Can you explain the conflict of interest in me giving a link to a recent scholarship on Atatürk, from which interested readers could benefit?

Thanks,

Christopherwils (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would think that is obvious.--Charles (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)