User talk:Rsloch

Evening all, please feel free to add a comment about my edits, question them or my references, but remember one thing, if I've edited your stuff it isn't personal. Life's too short for that.

Presently trying to: add some colour (and accuracy) to UK political biographies, expand the articles on disused railway stations in the UK, and conflicts involving the British Empire.

Australian Wikipedians Noticeboard

Hello Rsloch. I think you're Australian, so come on down here to keep up to date with the Australian related stuff on wikipedia. Thanks.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

British, Company, Europeans, Mughals

Hi Rsloch. I, as you can probably see :-), disagree with your wholesale changes of Company to British, etc. etc. Since the Company was British, and derived its authority to govern India from various acts of the British parliament, I think it can safely be characterized as being British. Similarly, substituting Europeans for British is not correct for two reasons: First, the rebellion was solely directed at the British; Second, the term Europeans is often colloquially used in exclusion of the British. Using Europeans would be definitely very odd. Finally, the Mughal empire was more than 350 years old, had inter-married extensively, and had not remaining ties with Central Asia or Afghanistan. If, at the time of the rebellion, they could be called foreigners, then almost all of us Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Australians, etc. are even more 'foreign' today than the Mughals were during the time of the rebellion! If you feel that at specific places 'Company' is better than British, then that is a different thing, but a wholesale change is not correct. Thanks!--Swans and ducks (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it like this. To me it's quite clear that, at least at the time of the rebellion, the Mughals were almost wholly Indian in nature. About the rest, the British/Company and British/European, I agree that there is less clarity. If you want to make your changes without the Mughal as foreigner reference, go ahead and we'll see what happens with others. Thanks for your response and for not making the edits without discussion! --Swans and ducks (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857

User:124.124.0.1 Reverts.

I think we were reverting the mentioned user edits at the same time, and i ended up actually reverting yours. I have amended this, and apologies for the error.--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rsloch, thanks for reincluding the info which I added on Amaresh Misra's estimates of the death toll during and after the Indian rebellion, regards, Knockadooma (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian rebellion book

Hello, I will copy what I left on Slatersteven's talk page since the topic is very similar. I have undone the edit you made deleting the disambig link I put in the article. The link is to a seperate article which exists on the book which itself has some notabillity, and since it shares the name that a lot of Indian do use to describe the event, I therefore believe a disambig is neccessary and have added an appropriate link. Moreover this is according to the building the web editing guideline. I have reinstated the link. I dont understand what you mean by "Openeing floodgates". Also, I pointed in the last edit summary that it would have been courteous to have informed me since you reverted outright an edit I made, and maybe seen as confrontational. Please leave me a message if you disagree. Thanks[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also left a message on the talk page of the article.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 00:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalin

Hi, you recently edited the Joseph Stalin article to say that his father was an Ossetian cobbler. However, the Vissarion Jughashvili article says that he was "the grandson of an Ossetian called Zaza." This would imply that Stalin's father was only 1/4 Ossetian. Can you please clarify what Simon Sebag-Montefiore said in his book? If Stalin was indeed 50% Ossetian, then the article about his father needs to be modified as well. Thanks. Khoikhoi 01:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Any chance you could provide me with p. 19 of Young Stalin? That would be great. Khoikhoi 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've read the source, and it says for sure that Zaza was Ossetian, and I'm assuming that his wife was as well. But how do we know whether Vano's wife was Ossetian or not? The book does say, "When Stalin’s dying father was admitted to hospital, significantly he was still registered as Ossetian" – but does this necessarily translate to him being 100% Ossetian? Khoikhoi 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

River Thames

Sorry to be difficult about this, but terminology on anything to do with Britain/Ireland is controversial. The last thing we want is yet another geography article getting pulled into that. --Snowded TALK 12:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

River Wye

There probably was a Roman crossing of the Wye near Chepstow - but I don't really see why a bald statement to that effect needs to be inserted at the start of a section which primarily deals with the history of navigation and trade on the river. The section does need to be expanded with references to other aspects of the river - including bridges, of which there are many, and other factors - and at some point I'll no doubt get round to it. So, I'm not questioning the validity of the statement, just a question of style - the existence of a Roman bridge at one time is, frankly, quite a minor point, and it makes the section read a bit oddly, in my opinion. A general point relating to Chepstow as the lowest bridging point would, to me, seem less odd. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bibighar Massacre

Hi! Although I can follow your reasoning on the inclusion of the victims of the Bibighar massacre in the list of disasters article it does not fall within the remit of the lists. The massacre was an action that took place due to events in the Indian Rebellion of 1857. As such it was neither a natural disaster or an accident, but an 'act of war'. You did wikilink the massacre to the Seige of Cawnpore which states Sepoys did the killing, though I an aware they were only partly responsible in that they shot some of the prisoners and butchers actually finished them of with meat cleavers. A more descriptive narrative is located on the Nana Sahib article here:- [1]. However as its a debatable issue perhaps you would like to take it to the article talk page to enable others to have a say and form a consensus, before re-inserting the event. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Julie Kirkbride

that respect story has already been in once and removed , please see talk Talk:Julie_Kirkbride , have you got a stronger cite? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

No? I thought not, I am reverting as there seems to be some dispute about this organisations involvement, it is actually irrelevent, as it was ... pressure group is fine . the reality is she has lost the publics support and her parties too so... I will watch the kirkbride talk if you want to discuss this . regards (Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC))(Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

shall we discuss it on the kirkbride talk page (Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

You have revert it I see, ok. the removal of the respect idea was broached on the talk pake and they decided to remove it, and I inserted the pressure group thingie as that is what the ref says and you have added the respect party and the two tags... one of these cites is to what is basically an online blog and should be removed. The comment in the telegraph is the only national newspaper to cover the respect party claims. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Mcbride

What is there to talk about? and with who?

The article in the state it was in is absolute rubbish and it is a bandstanding load of rubbish, basically an attack page. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Hello? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Do you want to talk about it? It is not a nice feeling when someone comes on and reverts 2 hours of your work, saying to talk about it and then goes away. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Regarding your edits to the Draper article .

can I draw your attention to this comment posted on the talk page. As far as I can see, regarding your edits, you are attempting to insert your POV in detriment of the biography. The edit that you have insisted in inserting in the lede is poor compared to my edit.

consider this comment about the draper biography.....

This article demonstrates a misuse of Wikipedia, whereby sources that may meet Verifiability have not been double checked against Neutrality. The two policies must be considered jointly. Remember that the latter policy states: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors". Wikipedia should also avoid sources based on rumours and personal opinions. What is going on in Decca Aikenhead's gossip piece in the Guardian lifestyle section is the retailing of rumours in the mainstream press, using material from the satirical magazine Private Eye. Private Eye is said to be bankrolled by major newspapers as a venue to float innuendo and rumour to see if it sticks—if Private Eye is not sued, the material then creeps into the mainstream press and starts to jellify as fact (if it is sued, the press as a whole will cover the fines). This is all very well for newspapers (and very clever), but Wikipedia shouldn't subscribe to that process and should deal only in transparent facts (or provide balancing material). I hold no brief for this Draper guy: but even if certain editors to this article want to see him vilified, I'd strongly suggest that the plain facts do this man little credit enough: the embellishment of the information with what any reader can see is biased sneering will only undermine the credibility of the whole article.

...(Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

your edit summary here ..[[2]] in reply to a vandalism on the draper article that draper was born a twat ..and your edit summary of .. yes he was but we can't put it here..is hardly a advert for your neutral editing on the article. Is it? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Flint

Regarding your removol of the polices decision not to charge mp's, this is actually very valuable in the story..actually it is closure to the whole thing.. there was press e and public outrage and the public wanted to hang them high and the public should know that the police said that there were no crimes commited,nothing illegal happened. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)) after I have gone to the trouble of commenting here I would request you to discuss reinsertions with me..Are you inserting anything to edit war with me? Your edits to the Flint article seem destructive(Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Please take a step back and try to be more constructive regarding our connected edits. Please talk about it instead of reverting. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Peter Mandelson

In answer to your question, please see WP:COATRACK. biography articles shouldn't become "lists of embarassing things". More specifically, controversies need to be notable - there needs to be substantial secondary source coverage showing that this is an actual controversy of significance for the subject, and not mere tabloid fodder. Disembrangler (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Indian students

you are just randomly removing stuff. pls note that the article is about attacks and not racial attacks. are you supporting to title the article into "racial attacks"? --Like I Care 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take care while editing 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia. It is not necessary for the attacks to be racially motivated to be included into the article. Philwalker87 (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)