User talk:Marigoldgluv

File copyright problem with File:Castle eaton lych gate.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Castle eaton lych gate.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Castle Eaton
Thankyou for creating the Castle Eaton article, and for your e-mail of 16th March 2010 about the article. In order for any other editors to follow the discussion I reproduce the substance of it here:

"I've noticed the update to the Castle Eaton website and like the flow of the text - and even better if this follows a template for other village entries. However, I believe there are now some factual inaccuracies, and irrespective of the construction of the page that this is something which I believe should be paramount when uploading information onto Wikipedia. Also, the original information was derived from local sources - please don't take this the wrong way, but I suggest that Pevsner may have some shortcomings - and I believe that the ability to extract information from local sources (provided it's provenance can be relied upon) truly exploits the opportunity presented by Wikipedia. What is worrying from my perspective is that there appears to be a 'Pevsner has opined' approach to the recent changes which could stifle any further contribution from acknowledged village sources. I noted your comment - 'Please make time to treat a fellow-Wikipedian as a human individual. I will of course do the same for you' - and look forward to hearing from you in order to work in concert :>)"

Wikipedia requires verifiability, which is not quite the same as truth. If you believe my editing has introduced factual inaccuracies, please identify them and cite reputable published sources to support what the accurate version should be. You state that the version of the article before I edited it "was derived from local sources" and you do not want "acknowledged village sources" to be stifled. In fact, before I edited the article it was almost completely deficient in inline citations and the few sources that it cited were online. I have added one reputable printed source and more than doubled the number of inline citations.

Before I edited the article it said more about the Thames Path than the village or parish. This seemed unbalanced to me. Too much of the little it did say about the village seemed to be from a walker's point of view, and not much of the information about the Thames Path seemed to comply with WP:V.

I suggest there is wide scope to improve the Castle Eaton article. Was there a castle? If so, was it the caput of an honour? Online I have not yet found any history of Castle Eaton's toponymy, manor(s), any recusancy, any protestant nonconformity, inclosure, village school, any alterations or improvements to the stretch of the River Thames in the parish, or any other significant history.

In writing for Wikipedia I draw more from the "Victoria County History" than "The Buildings of England". VCH is said to have completed its coverage of Wiltshire, but I haven't yet found Castle Eaton in VCH's online version at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/catalogue.aspx?gid=36. If you know which hundred of Wiltshire included Castle Eaton you may wish to either search VCH yourself, or else tell me and I'll do so.

If you reply, please do so on this page. Splitting a dialogue between two editors' talk pages makes it very hard for either them or any other editor to follow the discussion.

Thankyou once again for getting in touch. Best wishes Motacilla (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Motacilla


 * Many thanks for the swift and detailed response. In response to the balance of the article and the ability to improve on it, I absolutely agree with you and have seen this very much as work in progress - albeit slow progress. I can also see that you're passionate about the Wikipedia project and its potential to disseminate information about the local area, and that is to be admired.


 * In terms of a lack of in-line citations, once again, 'guilty as charged m'lud'


 * I would however like to make three observations:


 * 1. You mention information which you would have expected to see in this article. In terms of scope I presume this is information that would usefully form a template for any village article, e.g hundreds, manors, schools, religious influences, etc. If there is such a template that can be used this would be useful to know about and help those who are not 'dyed-in-the-wool' Wikipedia publishers (like myself). I recognise that the consistency of information presentation makes for easier reading as well as a useful prompt for editors when searching for and knowing where to insert information.


 * 2. With regard to inaccuracies, I note the comment wrt verifiability, and also note in Wikipedia-speak this means a 'well-researched' source. The inaccuracies relate to the content of an Ordnance Survey Map and the other wrt Audrey Tomlin's book 'A brief history and guide to the ancient building and surrounding grounds of Castle Eaton Parish Church in the county of Wiltshire (1992)'. No it's not Pevsner or any other 'higher' work but it contains a superb insight into the church, and one has to believe after reading it, is extremely credible (even though trust is not an issue).


 * 3. The third is regarding the role of Wikipedia - or should I say the role we perceive it to have - if in fact a choice really exists. Is it going to be playground of part-time historians and historical societies or is it going to be a rich repository of local (well-researched) information that extends beyond that available in the tomes sitting on the shelves of academic libraries. If it's the latter, we may as well simply download their contents onto Wikipedia, all go home and save wasting our time. My feeling is that there is a middle-ground, however I suspect it will be difficult to achieve.


 * It's been a very interesting exercise to be involved with and a pleasure talking to you...


 * Very best regards...Marigoldgluv

You keep me at a disadvantage by withholding what you think is inaccurate compared with an OS map (Which scale? Which series? What sheet number?) and a book that I've never seen. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy or authority of Ms Tomlin's book, and I note that Swindon Council cites it in its Conservation Area appraisal for Castle Eaton. If you cite her, there will be few Wikipedians who will be able to dispute her and probably none who would want to do so. Be bold! If you have more accurate information, do what any good Wikipedia editor does: don't get stuck in a dialogue with another editor; just amend the article and cite your sources.

You paragraph 3. confuses me. Did you mean "former" where you wrote "latter"? Either way, your question about Wikipedia becoming a "playground of part-time historians and historical societies" seems pejorative and not to assume good faith. On both counts it is unwelcome. Your apparent rhetorical suggestion that fellow-editors should "download" (did you mean "upload"?) the contents of academic works onto Wikipedia conflicts with WP's policies on plagiarism and copyright violations.

I am not here to play, plagiarise or violate copyright. I am here to add notable material to articles in a global encyclopaedia. This seems to be your purpose too, so please just continue! Motacilla (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)