User talk:Cavalierinns

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

reservations
You are welcome but your user name gives an hint that you may be the rep of a company and here purely to create veiled advertising. If so, you will be watched! Please justify your claim that Image:The Royal Standard of England.jpg is free use - where did you get it from? Having uploaded it, you might as well use it in an article.

The Royal Standard of England was deleted because it was a crude copy and paste from the pub's website. Pubs have a difficult time here, they do have to be notable. However I think the Royal Standard might qualify. If you create a shorter article written in your own words, it will probably survive. -- RHaworth 18:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Royal Standard of England
I have nominated The Royal Standard of England, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/The Royal Standard of England. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  Web H amster  05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:The Royal Standard of England.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The Royal Standard of England.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Web H amster  05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please can you qualify your historical claims with verifiable source material?
Dear Cavalierinns,

Thought I would write to you direct to explain my concerns about the various entries you have made on Wikipedia about the Royal Standard, where you live. Please rest assured that I am not trying to be antagonistic - just constructive. Like you, I am a big fan of Wikipedia as a reliable worldwide reference source. This means, as I am sure you will agree, that articles should be accurate and verifiably so. For the record, I am not the landlord. landlady or owner of The Red Lion in nearby Knotty Green, nor am I employed there. But I do think your claims about the Royal Standard need testing.

As far as I can ascertain, of the various historical claims about the Royal Standard on the pub's entry and in other Wikipedia articles you have writen,  none of them is attributed to verifiable source material. Moreover, as you may know, the local author, historian and Penn Parish Council clerk, Miles Green, was recently interviewed in the Bucks Free Press and pointed to historical records (available in the County Records office in Aylesbury and of which he has copies) which indicate that the RS is not the oldest freehouse in England and does not date back 900 years to Saxon times. Tthe earliest public record for there being a 'beerhouse' at the site of the RS is the Census of 1841. Also, the Tithe Map of 1838 lists the building now occupied by the RS as an "orchard with cottage" - i.e. not a pub, nor an alehouse, nor a beerhouse. The Licensing Return of 1872 reveals that premises were first licensed as a public house in 1863.

I hope you do not find my comments upsetting. Hopefully, as a fellow Wikipedia devotee, you will appreciate that facts have to be truthful and verifiable.

Kind regards, Buckshistory (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckshistory - What is your motive? And what connection do you have to the Red Lion? Cavalierinns

Dear Cavalierinns - I have explained my motive both here and on the RS deletion debate page. Wikipedia is a reference source - and as such is meant to be accurate and verifiably so. If the RS is as old it claims - then it is a notable pub and, as such, is worthy of its own page in Wikipedia. However, as I have outlined, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the RS is not 900 years old and does not date back to Saxon times. The Register of Alehouse Keepers of 1753 required all beerhouses, alehouses, freehouses and pubs to be registered by law - otherwise an offence was being committed. The RS does not appear on that register (nor that of 1577). Then there's the Tithe Map of 1838 which has the site now occupied as the RS listed as an "orchard with cottage". If you have evidence to the contrary - that can support the pub's age claims - then great. Otherwise, I think you have to concede that the RS does not qualify for its own Wikipedia entry because those age claims are not verified by historical sources or records. It is one thing to, shall we say, embellish things on your own website and signage (there are lots of pubs that claim they have ghosts or that Charles I stayed there or that it was a favourite haunt of Dick Turpin). But it is quite another to present unverified claims as facts on Wikipedia, which is a worldwide reference source and requires entries to be factually accurate and verified. Otherwise the whole thing would be a mess. That's my motive. As I have said, I don't work at the Red Lion, am not the landlord or landlady - my "connection" is that I have enjoyed a very nice pint or two there (as indeed I have at the RS and other Penn Parish pubs) in the past. Buckshistory (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)