User talk:Chris Barltrop

Welcome!

Hello, Chris Barltrop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Hello Chris Barltrop. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Robert Barltrop, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Chris Barltrop


A tag has been placed on User:Chris Barltrop requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 08:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Phillip Astley and Circus Articles
I have reverted some edits and removed various text which seems to be self promotional and a conflict of interest. Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources WP:RS and for editors to not add information that is about themselves WP:COI. If you want to re-write the text and add reliable sources without the personal promotion then please do so. But as it stands it is not acceptable. If you disagree please take this issue to the article talk page so it can be discussed by all editors. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have again reverted your edits to the Circus and Phillip Astley articles. You seem to have missed or ignored the above post regarding reliable sources and conflict of interest. Although you may believe your edits are accurate and true, Wikipedia is based on reliable verifiable secondary sources. See WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. Self published and other similar types of source are not acceptable as is using Wikipedia for a source for itself. Although I understand it is frustrating that information you honestly believe is correct you must follow Wikipedia policies. You can see the main ones at WP:5P. I ask you again to take any issue you have with my revert and your desire to include your information in these articles to the article talk page at Phillip Astley (as it is mostly about Astley) as per WP:BRD. Although you seem to be an occasional editor who may not know the main Wikipedia policies failure to discuss the issues with your edits by posting the same or similar information at these articles will be seen as disruptive editing and may lead to editing sanctions. Robynthehode (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris Barltrop response to above:

Is this the correct place to contact you and comment? Your reference to the Talk tab on the item page failed to say that there is a second stage, a click on the Edit tab. I found my way here by guesswork; your lack of clarity hasn’t helped me get in touch. Sending me the same email three times hasn’t reassured me of your calm and rational consideration of the matter. In case I have now reached the correct medium of communication, please comment on the following.

I accept your previous deletion of references to the success of my play, references which could be seen as ‘self-promotion’, though those mentions are paralleled by other entries on the page which remain undeleted. My most recent edits have been purely factual, and the facts are as follows:

1. I am the historian who pinpointed the site of Philip Astley’s first performances. I gave a reference to the published details. As such, it seems reasonable to include my name;

2. I am the person who, having advised the local community that their homes are on the site of this important event in popular culture, also initiated their generosity in erecting a Plaque, the first monument to Philip Astley to have been officially unveiled in this country. I can if you wish add a link to the website of the community organisation, which reports and verifies the event, but it gives my name and there are photographs of me – will that be ‘self-promotion’? ;

3. I am the person who unveiled the Plaque while costumed as Philip Astley, a major contribution to public awareness of the story. Is the unveiling and my part in it to be redacted? I can give references to published reports.

4. I am the only person in the world to have chosen to document this history by originating and performing a piece of theatre which tells the story and also allows audiences to see Astley’s character, an important factor in understanding the evolution of circus and also of the nomadic community which exists around the Classical (you may be using the outdated term ‘traditional’) circus. Again, it seems reasonable to give my name in this context. I compare your unfavourable treatment of my material with the unredacted references to the excellent Philip Astley Project and to my old and good friends the Van Burens; to the promotion (?) of the superb history book researched and written by Karl Shaw; and further down the page to the mention of a commemorative paving stone at St Thomas’s Hospital, a paragraph which features the name of Zippo’s Circus and which (if you were consistent in your judgments) is ‘self-promoting’ (I should mention that it was again me who wrote this paragraph, since it was me who acted on behalf of the circus company in every aspect apart from paying for the stone).

Regarding your deletion of material on the ‘Circus’ page, comments similar to those above regarding any inclusion of my name apply here too. Because my efforts to contact you ended in failure this morning for the reason given at the start of this note, I have written separately to Wikipedia at info-en@wikimedia.org to complain as follows, and since you appear also to be the editor of that page, I wish for a full and detailed explanation from you of what appears to be blatant bias in allowing enormous chunks of unverified claims and of self-promoting political material to remain there. My email of this morning read as follows: <<I am a member of the Classical circus community, and a historian of the circus art-form.

The Wikipedia page cited in the heading of this message mentions the inclusion and the historical contexts of performing animals in circuses. However, the page is being used as a vehicle by commercially-operated animal rights groups to promote their activities and their political viewpoint. This material now constitutes more than half the page content. Unsubstantiated and generalised claims are made regarding the treatment of animals in circuses. I have in the past added factual information to counter such claims, but on each occasion I did so it was swiftly removed ('swiftly' in this case signifies 'within minutes').

Historical facts are welcome, reflecting changes over time in the content of circus performances. However, I believe that self-promotion by these organisations is against Wikipedia's rules, as should be the expression of corporate political opinion, and I would welcome your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Barltrop (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * To take your points in turn but first some basic procedures:

1. It is usual to reply to comment on your talk page with comments on the same talk page. You can make sure I see it by 'pinging' the editor. There are various ways but the one I use is u| (surrounded by double curly brackets) with the user name following the u| but when replying on article talk page replyto| (surrounded by double curly brackets) is commonly used (again with the user name following the 'pipe' | 2. It is usual to sign your posts. It is easily done by adding four tildes ~ (repeated 4 times) at the end of your post 3. Contacting another editor is easy. You can ping them using the above. Or simply click on the editor's talk page link in the user name signature (the user name in square brackets ). You can then post a comment on that user's talk page much like you did. 4. Your inability in contacting me is understandable because of your limited knowledge of Wikipedia but it has nothing to do with my lack of clarity but your lack of experience with Wikipedia. 5. An important part of Wikipedia policy is that content is based on consensus WP:CONSENSUS. If one editor posts content and then another objects to for good reasons (such as whether it follow Wikipedia policies) then the expected process is to follow the 'BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS' cycle WP:BRD. Because I have objected to your edits consensus must be achieved before the edits can be reposted to the articles 6. Another important policy of Wikipedia is that no editor owns the articles they edit and therefore any editor can be challenged by referring to other editors for their views. You can do this to challenge my views by reading - 'Third Opinion' WP:3O; Requests for comment WP:RFC or event WP:DRN 7. You can always seek help by going to the 'Help' pages - the link is in the left menu on any page or ask other editors

To take your substantive article content in turn: 1. Thanks for removing the conflict of interest sources as per WP:COI. However, just because there are other sources in the circus and Phillip Astley articles that you claim are self promotional doesn't make them self promotional. You would have to argue this at the article talk pages. To make this clear the article talk page links are Talk:Circus and Talk:Philip Astley and the articles themselves are Circus and Philip Astley

2. You may very well be the historian who is responsible for finding out information on Astley. My reversion of your edit is not based on the truth of this one way or another. However, Wikipedia is based on information posted by its editors from secondary reliable verifiable sources. Wikipedia policy challenges conflicts of interest. So because you are the person claiming to be the historian Chris Barltrop and you are posting information about research of and the person that is 'Chris Baltrop' then this seems to me to be a conflict of interest Please read WP:COI and WP:RS and WP:OR. The whole point of the policy challenging conflicts of interest and self promotion is anyone can claim to be an expert in anything and post anything on Wikipedia. This is why there is a core policy or reliable verifiable sources.

3. Re the community event and plaque mentioned above. Conflict of interest comes into play here as well as you are the person posting information about something you were involved in. However if independent reliable secondary sources report the fact of the community event and the unveiling of the plaque that should be okay.

4. Re the theatrical performance. Again a conflict of interest unless it is reported by reliable sources. If your name is mentioned in a reliable source this may be okay

5. Re your email complaint to Wikipedia. Although I acknowledge you do not understand Wikipedia processes and policies and therefore think that contacting Wikipedia by email will result in a definitive response I think you will find they will point you to the various links below about dispute resolution. I do not solely edit the articles in question. I do not claim ownership of these articles. I am just another editor trying the best I can to apply Wikipedia policy to articles I wish to edit. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Your claim that the inclusion of 'Animals and Circuses' is self promotional is not credible. There may be issues with some of the sources (this is true across Wikipedia and this is why good editors try to follow Wikipedia policy of reliable sources) but its inclusion in the circus article is warranted. However if you read that article's talk page you will see that I have agreed with another editor that the 'Animal and Circuses' section should be moved to a separate article with only a short summary in the main circus article.

As editors we all want the most accurate up to date encylopaedia possible, that is why there are Wikipedia policies. I have posted this lengthy response here but if you want to discuss the content of your edit and its inclusion in the two articles mentioned then please post on the article talk page (the Phillip Astley one would be best). This makes it easy for other interested editors to post comments. I have copied this post to the Talk:Philip Astley talk page for clarity and ease of continuing the discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)