User talk:Peter Larkins

Casabianca
Thanks very much, one thing you'll probably find on here is that it's always nice to get some kind words. Hopefully the above will help you through your start up, if you have further queries I'm happy to help out. Links to disambiguation pages aren't neccessarily bad, but it's nice to help readers to go to where they want to be. The subtleties of that sort of editing are tricky to get at first, but once you do then you shouldn't have a problem. Kind regards, --Benea 12:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see what you mean. I'll try to give my interpretation:


 * As to the addition of Mrs, probably the reason it was done was because as an encyclopedia, wikipedia tries to give the widest and overall picture of the whole subject, in that she wasn't always a Mrs, and referring to her as this in a general manner in a different article might cause confusion. Personal pronouns tend to be discouraged because of this, and the only time they tend to occur is when talking about individuals' titles and ranks, hence Lord so-and-so, Admiral such-a-body or Captain-what's-his-name, and only then when talking about an individual at the specific point in his career, eg "Lord Keith was anchored aboard his flagship...".  One good reason I suppose to avoid using Mr, master, miss, mrs, etc is to avoid coming across as a bit feminist or anti-femininst I suppose, which might rub someone up the wrong way.  Trust me, more pointless arguements have raged across wikipedia before!  So you're quite right to say it's not wrong, but sometimes information needs to be in keeping with the style and conventions of an encyclopedia, which wikipedia tends to follow quite closely.


 * As for the parodies, I see from the edit history that a number have been removed, and not just by the one editor at the one time. You're right to say that people thinking that they can own an article can be a problem, see WP:OWN, but I suspect that's not the case here.  A number of parodies have been added over the article's history, some of them bordering on WP:Original Research, which is another no-no. So an editor might have added something he heard at school, but the rule is that if there are no independent sources for it, then it shouldn't be on wikipedia.  I'm not saying that this is the case for your parodies, but the fact that someone might have been adding these before has perhaps made an editor quite hot on clearing them out.


 * Another reason is that the article is about the actual poem, so when the section on parodies actually overwhelms the information on the actual subject of the article, it's perhaps going a bit too far. As it stands there are a few examples to go along with the assertation that the poem has been ripe for parody, and an external link for more of these examples.  That's usually enough for that sort of an article.  I wouldn't have reverted it myself but it's a bit of an edge case.  I notice on the article's discussion page, a few editors have listed parodies they remember.  You might like to put yours on there, and if you feel strongly about it, raise the issue there about which examples should be inluded in the article.


 * I hope this helps, if you feel you need more clarification, please don't hesitate to ask. The main thing I suppose to remember is that an encyclopedia is a collection of information, but that some discretion should be made as to what information is worthy of being included.  Rather than have a full biography on a subject, which could run to several hundred pages in a book, we try to provide an overview of the subject with everything relevant to someone unfamiliar with the subject, but short enough that the reader wouldn't have to slog through a vast wodge of text to find what he's looking for.  Sorry that you've had a bit of a rough start, it doesn't come easy to find someone's reverted even one of your edits, but the more practice you have, the less it tends to happen.  Be WP:BOLD, but sometimes you'll find it's easier to let some things go.  Anyway, keep in touch if you want to know more.  Kind regards, --Benea 00:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Isle Of Wight Blue
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Isle Of Wight Blue, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.isleofwightcheese.co.uk/our-cheeses/iow-blue.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)