User talk:GoodnessandTruth

Welcome!

Hello, GoodnessandTruth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoodnessandTruth, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi GoodnessandTruth! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Wisley Airfield

I have removed most of the material you added to this article because it was completely unsourced and obviously biased against the involved company and the circumstances surrounding the subject. You are welcome to read the policy on verifiability and neutral point of view, as well as the conflict of interest guidelines, if those apply to you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your additions to this article. I have no interest in the airfield, nor its history, so I am unbiased. I came here after answering your Teahouse question and was intrigued.

I have reverted your edits, suggesting in my edit summary that you take this to the article talk page. If, for example, 'the government reneged on' something, find sources that show they promised and then others sources to show they reneged. Use this principle throughout. It;s hard to do, but it is the way of WIkipedia. Fiddle Faddle 12:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, GoodnessandTruth. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Fiddle Faddle 12:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am not a professional wikipedia user. I have plentiful sources to cite. But I am not familiar with the html language that seems to be required to enter them.

I might also add that much of the information I have provided is within the living memory of many local people. It is difficult to cite the verbal testimony of living people.

By removing the text you have taken it upon yourself to censor my contribution. If you could show that my information is factually inaccurate in ANY respect I would be more understanding. Instead it seems that you are taking out my contributions on a technicality.

It would have shown greater respect to have pointed out and asked for references (which can be supplied) rather than shooting first and asking questions afterwards.

Needless to say I shall respect your technicalities when I have worked out how to insert references.

Please try very hard not to be combative. You have been advised to use the article's talk page. Use it. WIkipedia is not censored and your complaint about being censored is ridiculous. Follow the rules. Follow them today, please. Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Wisley Airfield shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You have been asked to take this to the article talk page. Please do so. Fiddle Faddle 13:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me. I am not trying to be combative. I was just putting the references into the article that you requested. Before I had finished someone took them down! I should be delighted to take this to the 'talk' page. However it is far from clear to me as a new user how on earth I do that. The system is not entirely intuitive for a new user.

Go to the article concerned and use the tab "talk", and see that a thread has already started there. Contribute to that thread. There are tow things to know:

The ":" character indents a discussion
~~~~ converts automagically to your signature. Please sign all talk page posts

My very strong suggestion is not to re-add the material without the benefit of a talk page discussion, and only to add it piecemeal, with referenced chunks.

I have given you a pointer to referencing below

Wikipedia editing looks simple, but it is not easy. Take it slow and steady and you will achieve success. Understand that we require consensus for things to be added to articles. 'Nemine contradicet' is the normal consensus, but, when someone has objected you then need to build a forma consensus. WP:BRD may help you understand what is going on. Fiddle Faddle 13:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing for beginners

You will find WP:REFB and WP:CITE helpful.

The language is not HTML, it is wikipedia's own syntax, based upon MediaWiki software and templates constructed by ordinary Wikipedians. It is worth taking the time to become familiar with the mechanisms. Fiddle Faddle 13:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal histories

Above, you mentioned verbal history. This is not appropriate for WIkipedia, however interesting, however correct and however relevant. You have a further reply to your teahouse question on this matter from another editor. Fiddle Faddle 13:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Wiki article on the Former Wisley Airfield

The sources for my edits are

1) The Story of Wisley Airfield by Wendy Lloyd copyright 2004 2) Wendy Lloyd's information is based on a) scrapbooks provided by local historian Anne Watson b)Minutes of Ockham Parish Council c) direct personal knowledge of local residents 3) HM Land Registry. The information can be obtained by putting in the title number for this land: SY524010 4) BAILII is the source for recent legal precedent: Hunston Property v St Albans http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/2678.html&query=hunston+and+v+and+st+and+albans+and+property&method=boolean

5) The Guildford Local plan provides an evidence base available on http://guildfordlocalplan.info/ The document cited is Green Belt and Country side study Vol V s22. The document can be downloaded. It is accurately quoted.

6) The 5 legal purposes of Green Belt Land are cited at the National Planning Policy Framework available from HM Govt at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

Please specify what further sources you require and I shall try and provide information.

Sources for Wiki article on the Former Wisley Airfield

The sources for my edits are

1) The Story of Wisley Airfield by Wendy Lloyd copyright 2004 2) Wendy Lloyd's information is based on a) scrapbooks provided by local historian Anne Watson b)Minutes of Ockham Parish Council c) direct personal knowledge of local residents 3) HM Land Registry. The information can be obtained by putting in the title number for this land: SY524010 4) BAILII is the source for recent legal precedent: Hunston Property v St Albans http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/2678.html&query=hunston+and+v+and+st+and+albans+and+property&method=boolean

5) The Guildford Local plan provides an evidence base available on http://guildfordlocalplan.info/ The document cited is Green Belt and Country side study Vol V s22. The document can be downloaded. It is accurately quoted.

6) The 5 legal purposes of Green Belt Land are cited at the National Planning Policy Framework available from HM Govt at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

7) That the Govt reneged on its wartime promises is recorded in Parliament. See Hansard HL Deb 02 December 1980 vol 415 cc360-82 360

Please specify what further sources you require and I shall try and provide information. GoodnessandTruth (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Place this material on the article talk page, Talk:Wisley Airfield, not your user talk page, please.

WIth any fact that is likely to be challenged WP:42 applies. WP:BURDEN puts the onus firmly on you as the editor adding new material to prove that your material should go in. In general Wikipedia is self policing.

Direct personal knowledge is material for the local history society, not for Wikipedia.

Where something 'can be obtained' you need to give a direct link to or chapter and verse for the material after it has been found. Bith are ideal, one is sufficient. Fiddle Faddle 14:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Govt policy towards Former Wisley Airfield

I am now going to edit this page. Taking your advice I am going to add the information in piece by piece with references. The first piece of information I am going to add is that the govt undertook to restore the land to its original condition when it was returned to its original civilian ownership after WW2. The source I am going to cite verbatim is Hansard - the official record of speeches in the UK parliament. This is obviously not the same thing as seeing the original undertakings. But it is very strong evidence. It was not denied in parliament and has always been .accepted. Hopefully if anyone wishes to verify this they can find Hansard on the internet and verify my quote. Will this satisfy the rules? Or is this considered contentious. No one has ever seen an electron. But they are generally accepted to exist. Likewise I have never seen the original purchase agreement between HM Govt and the original owners. And it is quite likely that it no longer exists. That does not mean that the information I cite is not correct and corroborated. (Sorry to be combative. This is proving to be harder work than I had expected.) GoodnessandTruth (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything worth doing well is hard work. You are now on the right lines. but first, use the article talk page to state clearly what you are doing. The fact of your repeated reversions will alert interested editors to your work, and it needs to be documented on the article talk page

Nothing is urgent here, so please slow down. Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, court papers, including judgements are viewed as primary sources. This is because they are the original papers for and decisions of the court. Life here is complex. WP:42 should be your mantra and guiding light Fiddle Faddle 14:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Step by step

Thank you Fiddle Faddle for your very helpful comments. There was a public enquiry into the use of this airfield in the early 1980s which will also provide strong evidence - as the proceedings were essentially judicial in character. It will take a while to track down these papers.GoodnessandTruth (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have time. Nothing in WIkipedia is ever urgent. As soon as you slowed down you were able to marshall your thoughts and work out how to do what you want to do. Take the time you need to learn how this rather crazy hobby works. It has arcane rules that it has formed over time and it hesitates to change them. When in doubt, deploy {{helpme}} here, on this page and ask your question beneath it as clearly as you can, linking to any article that you need help with. You'll be amazed how quickly someone comes along to help you.

The only thing to take personally on WIkipedia is praise. All else is background noise. Fiddle Faddle 15:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]