Talk:Augher: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:10, 8 May 2010

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Start‑class Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historical source

User:Moutray2010 recently added a large verbatim copy of an 1837 text to the main body of this article - see [1]. I feel it is inappropriate to simply copy vast swathes of antique writing into the body of Wikipedia articles, as Wikipedia is not a repository for old texts, and so I reverted the addition. I think the text could be a useful source and perhaps a "History" section could be made from it (much abbreviated), but it should not just be copied verbatim into the article as it was. Moutray2010 disagrees, and a discussion has started at User_talk:Moutray2010#Augher. Any thoughts or suggestions would be welcome here. -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think it is equally inappropriate to remove on mass a submission . the submission should be restored , adn you can remove segments you feel appropriate , however just to remove it as a blanket delete is vexacious. i have already explained this. the original article , refers to the O Neil clan / o Nial clan , who were the owners previously ie over 500 years ago . how can you say that you can justify leaving in an inclusion to the o Nial family , who were there prior to 1610 , but then omit over 400 years of history since then . ie o Neil owned it up to around 1610 . then was Sir James Erskine the main landowner, then Moutray Estate up until 1975 . How can you say that is not relevant . i dont see what policy you are relying on . i am going to restore my submission . please feel free to edit , with reasons , and if removing , please refer and quote the policy you are relying on , eg lack of notability etc. you are simply being antagonistic , you have disrupted my submission for a second time . i am going to restore my submission , please feel free to discuss this here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.194.202 (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 1. it it your opinion . 2. please simply state facts. 3. dont remove something because you " feel " or its 'your opinion" . if there are grounds for removal , then refer to those policy grounds before removing . you are being disruptive. you ahve not given any supporting reasons , other than its ' what you feel' , please refer to the submission on portclare . which quotes from teh same reference , and is valid for the same reasons . people like myself are donating time and effort , to contribute more information , you are simply undermining peoples goodwill efforts . i am not against any alteration , and welcome edits to make it more useful . adn relevant , but you are removing everything . please refer to the contentious aspects of it , that you have issue with . then i hope we can compromise . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moutray2010 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that people read- it is not good, stylistically, to suddenly switch writing styles, nor is it necessary- any important information in that source can be added to the article by rewriting it into a writing style more appropriate for a modern encyclopedia. There's certainly no necessity to copy the whole source directly- it may not be under copyright, but that doesn't make it part of the best possible encyclopedia article on the subject. Your comment doesn't really address that problem; have you ever read an encyclopedia article that included long passages copied from other encyclopedias? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am not perfect , and neither are you . the whole point is that it is meant to be a collaborative effort . please feel free to rewrite portions you feel you can do better. i dont want to be criticised by you . comment on the content , not the contributor . feel free to improve the article if you like , but dont simply delete what others have submitted . if you object, specify what policy you are relying on , otherwise its just your opinion. you dont own the article , dont get so attached to it . feel free to add and improve it , reformat in whatever way you feel improves it , rather than telling me , why dont you do it , as i'm happy with what i submitted .