Talk:Epsom riot/Archive 1

Recent edits
, please stop edit warring on this. Please also remain WP:CIVIL and don't just accuse other editors of WP:OWNERSHIP: I will be happy to open an ANI case against you if you continue with the accusation.

I have no idea why you decided to revert all the changes I made yesterday - even the bits which you had not edited. This is not the way WP works. Let me explain the rationale behind my edits, and maybe you can see the sense in what I have done. The following are a selection of breaches of the MoS:
 * "Epsom, Surrey": Why did you delete Surrey?
 * "Station-Sergeant Thomas Green": why did you remove his first name on the first mention of him?
 * "The Rifleman public house" -> "'The Rifleman' public house": why did you put inverted commas around the name?
 * "World War I" -> "First World War": why change from more commonly British to more commonly American)
 * "17 June 2019" -> "June 17, 2019" : why change the date format from the British format to the non-British one?
 * Further reading. Not only is the book mentioned in the body of the article, it's also a source. This, as with all the above points, breaches the MoS.

The following are because the information is unencyclopaedic or are improvements:
 * Kirkham Green: we do not need to know where he was born or lives;
 * linking museum is WP:OVERLINKING
 * The name of the beer is too trivial to warrant a mention.

I have left most of what you have written in place, and only undertaken tweaks around some aspects of the text. Should you have a different opinion on this, please DISCUSS this, rather than just reverting blindly. - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , please stop practicing article ownership. "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page.  The edits I have made are all supported with citations and add value to the article."  The subheader "Further Reading" is adding an important book on the subject of the article and makes it easier for less sophisticated readers to find.  Wikipedia policy states: "In articles with numerous footnotes, it probably is not obvious which ones are suitable for further reading. The "Further reading" section can help the readers by listing selected titles without worrying about duplications."  In addition, it is you who is edit-warring by deleting my cited entries that are following Wikipedia policy.  If you want to do your own research and add new content with citations that improves the article please feel free to add it.  Aquataste (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So,, rather than respect BRD and STATUS QUO, you have ignored the arguments I have put in place above, showing where you are breaching the MoS, but instead of discussing the matter civilly, you have edit warred again and doubled down on incivility by accusing me of OWNership for the second time? Is there any good reason why I don't file a report at WP:ANI for edit warring and incivility? - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't understand why Aquataste supposes it necessary to adopt so confrontational, not to say belligerent, approach. We Wikipedia editors are reasonable folk, by and large, and will gladly join in discussions when two editors disagree. Silly accusations about WP:OWN do not help Aquataste's case. I see that Serial Number 54129 has made a suitable reversion, and I support that change. –  Tim riley  talk   19:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I drank a pint of Hop House 13 and three pints of Ringwood 49 with Redrose64 and RexxS on Sunday. Doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * did you drive down or get a train? ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
I have added some links to the Canadian units mentioned. There is no article currently for the 102nd Battalion Canadians (aka 102nd Battalion, CEF). And what is the 11th Division Canadians? Is that the 11th Battalion, CEF or the 11th Canadian Brigade in the 4th Canadian Division?

Also, our articles say that, for example, the 13th Canadian Highlanders were disbanded in April 1919, and the 3rd Canadians returned to Canada on 21 April 1919 and were demobilized on 23 April 1919 (and disbanded some time in 1920), so what were the soliders doing in Epsom in June? -- Hyphen8d (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Who pardoned them - check
I notice it says that within weeks of conviction in 1919 they were pardoned by the Prince of Wales, article linked to Edward VIII. Is that correct? I thought the prerogative of clemency was in the hands of the sovereign, then George V who lived until 1936 when the Prince succeeded him.Cloptonson (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)