User talk:Pfgpowell

Blossom's or Blossoms's?
Hello, Pfgpowell. If you find it important to include the bit about the defunct shop, it would be appreciated if you would: This is an encyclopedia article, and should not read like a memoir, blog, letter home, etc. You may want to consult What Wikipedia is not. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * specify whether the place was called "Blossoms's" (plural) or "Blossom's" (singular),
 * make some effort to form complete sentences, and
 * omit statements of personal sentiment.

P.S. Saw your email. I encourage you to correct the errors you've identified. If you know of a published source (a "reliable source") about the OS, it would be good to consult in case a dispute should erupt with other editors over facts about the school. Cheers. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't a clue whether it was 'Blossom's', 'Blossoms' or 'Blossom''. After all the name was a semi-satirical one and its origins are simply lost in time. And it'not as though - as has in the past been rather embarrassingly demonstrated - Wikipedia is universal byword for accuracy. If anything it has rather blotted its copybook by carrying very weorng accounts or very biased accounts. Bugger its intentions and 'mission' we Brits pay more heed to what is being achieevd and how. So a little less bragging might not go amiss. And if I might say so without upsetting to many egos, the query (which I have only now spotted, over a year or two later) is rather typical of a somewhat - dare I say American - po-faced attitude. For example, my initial additions were first deleted and then, once re-submitted, edited by some prat in the Midwest who had NEVER attended the OS (as we called it) and, I should imagine had never before heard of the school before interfering with my contribution. Just what made him think he was qualified to comment on something of which he knew nothing I do not know. But then that's the American way. For the record, much of the info on the OS page is half right, some quite wrong. For example (and as I was there from 1963 to 1968 but as things change I stand to be corrected) a 'quarter-of-an-hour was the standard punishment - I never heard it referred to as a 'quarterly' - and not half-an-hour, which was a more serious punishment and thus rarer. Boys could get a quarter of an hour for having their jacket undoen if they were not entitkled to or havign their hands in their pocks. 'Center' is the American spelling but as this was an English public school the spelling should correctly be 'Centre'. For some odd reason the reference to 'gating' has been removed. Why exactly?. If you got six or more quarter of an hours in one week, you were 'gated' i.e. restricted to the school boundaries for a week and obliged to report to the duty master/prefect regularly. As far as I know this is still the case. 'Skiving' is a national English word for avoiding work, not one restricted to the OS. When I was there, every second-year (not thrid-year) pupil was a 'brat', assigned to a prefect for whom he did jobs (other schools called them 'fags'). We weren't caned but 'beaten'. Finally, yes, the emphasis in 'refectory' was on the first syllable, but far more importantly the word was pronounced (and this is a phonetic rendition) 're-fer-tree', something I do to this day. So please stop trying to boss the world around. And please get it right. pfgpowell PS If anything, being an old boy who attended the OS for five years, I am a more 'reliable source' than any prat in the Midest.

Paul Dacre
I have responded to your comments on my talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Flint.
Is that ok? []

I'm certain that everyman would be happy with those pics. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

comment mentioning you at ANI
Comment has been posted about you at [] thanks

Talkback
Skarebo (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot
yes you did get it worng. This is SB's edit. incidentally it helps to mentionand idealy link ot at least the artile you are tlakignabout, if not the diff. Rich  Farmbrough 12:13 7  October 2009 (UTC).

Edit war regarding The Oratory School "slang" section
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Oratory School. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I have posted this notice here because you appear to have reinstated the unreferenced and non-encyclopaedic Terminology and Slang section of The Oratory School article at least three times, without participating in the discussion.

June 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to The Oratory School. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost&trade; 17:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to The Oratory School. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''I understand what you're trying to do, but the fact remains that Wikipedia requires information to be referenced, not just personal recollection. You have been repeatedly inserting this material for years now - please direct your energies into getting it published somewhere or finding somewhere it has already been published, rather than insisting it goes here unreferenced.'' --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:SudoGhost with this edit. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost&trade; 18:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Slang section
I've replied to your comments at length, at User talk:Demiurge1000. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to The Oratory School. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SudoGhost 16:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Oratory School. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Just so ya know...
(✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello.

When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please reconsider
I can understand the effects of frustration, but this is an unacceptable edit made to an article's mainspace. If you do not want to address the problems you find, that's ok, we're all volunteers. However, disrupting the encyclopedia is not the course you want to take.  Tide  rolls  18:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Your 'edit' underlines just how flawed the whole system is: you would rather remove - you have removed - my very pertinent comment and leave all the 'unsourced' material in situ. Well which is it: should material be sourced or not? If this entry can remain as it is, why the bloody hell did some Wiki geek Somewhere In The Midwest insist that what I submitted had no place in Wikipedia - no sir, we can't have that! - because it was 'unsourced'? Are you guys real? Take a look at the comments on my talk page for further details, e.g. from a comment by some guy who took me to task and insisted I take note of the ruling on a "reliable source". So which is it: is the Richard Addis entry on some way sacrosanct that it need not observe the rules on a "reliable source"? As far as you are concerned: yes. I hope you have the good grace to admit the whole shooting match is nonsensical. It is the existence of the various committee men and apparatchiks who populated Wikipedia which give me some insight into how atrocities such as the Holocaust, the Stalinist purges and Cambodia's Year Zero were possible: all process and absolutely no soul. All Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot needed were the bureaucrats. That same mindset permeates Wikipedia. Must follow rules, oh yes, irrespective of how foolish it makes us look. At least we followed the rules. Idiots. pfgpowell 18:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really follow your reasoning. You're put out because editors (over several years it would appear) have removed content you feel is important, so rather than take the time and trouble to learn how to make your time here effective you rail against the system and call people names. I don't see how that fits any definition of helpful for anyone in the equation.  Tide  rolls  18:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Come on, you do get what I'm saying. The problem is you don't want to get it. I am highlighting the glaring inconsistency - and did so very clearly in my message above. If you can't understand the simple points I make, I can't help you at all. I repeat: Richard Addis material can remain because it's unsourced? Or should it be removed till it's sourced? It's that simple, but it's easier for you to play the 'I'm confused' card. Are you suggesting the whole entry should be removed till it's sourced? That is the obvious measure, isn't it? pfgpowell 18:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the obvious measure. The article does contain sourcing, albeit presented in an unconventional format.  Tide  rolls  19:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, you're clutching at straws. 'Unconventional format' - yeah, that's right. The only lesson to be learnt here is: never ever mix it with a committee man, process, process, protocol, protocol, and when it suits them 'exceptional circumstances' as in 'unconventional format'. If you guys in Alabama understand British vernacular: you're talking bollocks. You know it, I know it and you know I know it. Ooh, 'unconventional format' eh, that's a good one. Look, you can't be a little bit pregnant: either everything is sourced according to the the rules on a "reliable source" or it isn't. pfgpowell 19:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, you can feel bad if it makes you feel better. Just keep your pointy behavior off the mainspace.  See ya 'round   Tide  rolls  19:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but you know that I don't feel bad. As for keeping 'pointy behaviour' of 'the mainspace', my advice to you is to try a little more honesty, especially with yourself. Your last message says it all.pfgpowell 21:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello there Mr. Powell. It looks like your unclear about the proper thing to do with unsourced information in articles. We actually have quite specific guidance about this. Allow me to quote from Verifiability: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." So, as you can see, there is some wiggle room here. Another problem, which BWilkins already pointed out at the administrators' noticeboard, is that Wikipedia is vast and the system is decentralised; there is no guarantee that anyone will notice when an edit breaks the rules, especially on our less-travelled articles, and if anyone notices there's no guarantee that they will know how to enforce them or that they will take the time to do so. The larger issue here is one of editor retention, and it is one of the more serious ones facing the Wikipedia community today. As of yet, there are no clear answers. Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 06:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but your comment doesn't address my central point that there is one rule for some and another for others. OK, so the Richard Addis entry should be amended with requests for citations, but the body of the entries should be left alone. Well, why couldn't this have been done with my additions to The Oratory School entry several years ago? In that case they were simply deleted. Then there is my secondary point that Wikipedia is crawling with 'editors' whose main delight is burrowing in the minutiae of the rules and regulations. The other party to this discussion is a case in point: throughout he refuses to address the specific points I raised and is finally reduced to resorting to an ad hominem argument, which signals, and thus acknowledges, capitulation. Sad, but true. pfgpowell 08:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there an inconsistency in the application of the rules? Probably.  The consensus regarding the implementation of the "rules" is dependent on the knowledge of the subset of editors who are involved in a certain page/article.  That's why we have dispute resolution processes that allow you to ask for things like a third opinion.  If in the end, the consensus is that what you wanted to see is not what the world sees, well, chalk it up to experience and remind yourself that this is just a website (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrew Tiernan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

July 2016
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Philip Green have been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Across the River and into the Trees, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bear. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I find Wikipedia useful as a departure point in general when seeking information, but overall am more than tad sceptical about much of the institution, for a number of reasons. And the entry for Across The River - as it stands - is a case in point.
 * We are always told - ‘lectured’ would be a more appropriate verb - by the self-appointed volunteer editors who help to run Wikipedia that ONLY sourced and attributed information can be used in an entry.
 * I had personal experience of that several years ago of how ‘strict’ this rule must be adhered to when I added information about my English high school (a ‘public school’ in the British sense) The Oratory School in Woodcote, Oxfordshire (which I attended for five years).
 * ALL of my contributions were deleted by some idiot jobsworth (in, of all places, Arizona) who pompously noted that none of what I added was sourced or attributed.
 * OK, if those are ‘the rules’ . . . But it would really help ‘the rules’ were applied consistently. Which brings me to the entry on Hemingway’s novel Across The River etc.
 * The second and third paragraphs of the entry for the novel describe the plot of the novel and, at a pinch, that might be legitimate, but the third paragraph concludes with:
 * ‘The novel is built upon successive layers of symbolism, and as in his other writing, Hemingway employs here his distinctive, spare style (the ‘iceberg theory’), where the substance lies below the surface of the plot.’
 * This is nothing but speculation (and in all my reading, I have not actually come across anyone else making the same claim).
 * First off, Hemingway was consistently ambiguous about how much ’symbolism’ there was in his work, in practice playing off both sides against the other and leaving the question wide open.
 * (Throughout his life, he was - both ostensibly and ostentatiously - ‘anti-art’ and talk on art, though this position and why he like the world to see him in that way becomes more interesting when you delve into his exceedingly complex character.)
 * As for ‘Hemingway’s iceberg theory’, it is increasingly being regarded as fatuous nonsense, most notably by the late Prof Paul Smith of Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, an otherwise stalwart Hemingway champion). It is also very curious, viz his ‘anti-art’ stance, that he did not attempt to indulge in any other kind of literary ‘theorising’.
 * Yet despite all that, the claim is allowed to stand in the Wiki entry. Why? Are Wikipedia’s rules selective? It very much seems so.
 * I am engaged in a project about Hemingway (https://hemingway-pfg.blogspot.com/p/the-hemingway-enigma-preface.html) and have read a great many commentaries and opinions about his work, and this novel (Across etc) is almost universally ridiculed. Hemingway’s one-time close friend, the novelist John Dos Passos even asked in a letter to a friend ‘How can a man in his senses leave such bullshit on the page?’
 * One biographer, Mary Dearborn, suggests that the bi-polar Hemingway was in a manic phase when he was writing the novel and simply did not realise quite how bad it was.
 * A few weeks ago, I edited this entry and removed a passage from made the, yet again unattributed and unsourced, claim that ‘modern views of the novel are more positive’. Oh, yes? By whom? And if the entry author knows, he/she must say so.
 * My edit was ignored and the claim re-instated by your bot, although why I don’t know as it is still unattributed.
 * So I shall be removing it again on the grounds that is is wholly subjective, and you must ‘instruct’ ‘your bot’ to provide attribution and source before reinstating it.
 * My overall point is that Wikipedia’s ‘rules’ - cited chapter and verse like catechism by the army of volunteer editors - about what might be legitimately be kept in an entry and what is ‘illegitimate’ are muddled, confusing, confused and, it seems, applied at whim by whichever volunteer ‘editor’ is on guard.
 * This is a real problem and should be attended to. I am hampered because technically I do not know my way around Wikipedia or else I would get in touch with ‘head office’ to make these same points.
 * PS I find it oddly unacceptable that ‘bots’ can and are used for editing, but that is We are always told - ‘lectured’ would be a more appropriate verb - by the self-appointed volunteer editors who help to run Wikipedia that ONLY sourced and attributed information can be used in an entry, but that is a different discussion.
 * PPS An indication that in some ways Wikipedia is (as they say in the North of England) ‘all fur and no knickers’ is the reference to A.E. Hotchner as one of Cosmopolitan’s ‘commissioned editors’. Er, there is no such animal. It should be ‘commissioning editor’, but that seems to have eluded your bot and Wikipedia’s army of zealous volunteer editors. pfgpowell 10:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)