User talk:John Chalgrove

Date format

Please read and follow WP:DATEFORMAT - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research

Wikipedia articles cannot contain original research Robinvp11 states and uses this as an argument to overwrite articles whether they have breached the definition or not. The definition on the Wiki page, ‘Wikipedia: No original research’ explains this statement as follows:- “Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.”

John Hampdens regiment and John Chalgrove’s contributions meet Wiki’s criteria. Robinvp11 applied his own values and removed John Hampdens regiment’s work on the 8 April 2020. Within Wiki’s records Robinvp11 states that the Battle of Chalgrove Field has too much information and is poorly written. On that criteria Robinvp11 removed four years of referenced information and inserted his interpretation that is littered with dubious citations and references.

Wiki’s administrators who had been supportive of my work over the previous four years to the point of clarifying British and American terminology never questioned the integrity of John Hampden regiment’s articles or how they were referenced. Robonvp11’s dramatic removal of my work was accepted by the administrators without question. When this irregularity was brought to the administrators’ attention difficulties in terminology arose which led to my account being blocked and my editing rights withdrawn.

Robinvp11’s work on the Battle of Chalgrove Field falls foul of ‘Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.’ Robinvp11 cites Stevenson & Carter Oxoniensia Vol 38 1973 extensively. Lester & Lester Oxoniensia Vol 80 2015, a peer reviewed article, comprehensively refuted and superseded Stevenson & Carter’s interpretation of the battle of Chalgrove. Robinvp11 cites Oxoniensia Vol 80 and in the last paragraph of ‘Background’ on the Battle of Chalgrove Field web page actively misquotes (Ref [12]) from page 34 that is cited. Sir Philip Stapleton actions that Robinvp11 refers in his citation is found at Oxoniensia Vol 80 page 37, last paragraph. Robinvp11 in the heading ‘Battle’ refers the reader to the Chalgrove Battle Map. Oxoniensia Vol 80 page 36 first published this map which describes the troop’s movements and the Battle. Robinvp11 refers to the map but his description of events is not supported by the Chalgrove Battle Map.

On 18 March 2021 Robinvp11 ‘undid’ a fully referenced contribution adding to the log, “a lot of this has been inserted without checking to make sure it’s sequential”. Robinvp11 usurped the administrator to add his threat that my editing rights would be withdrawn if further items were added to the John Hampden and Battle of Chalgrove Field Wiki pages. Administrators are still to comment on Robinvp11’s behaviour but my request on the John Hampden wiki page to stop censorship was promptly met with ‘Xover’ issuing an edit-warring notice. Robinvp11 sent an email and a reference to User talk: John Chalgrove - Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John Hampden. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.’ The edits in question are referenced and sourced in accordance with Wiki’s protocol.

On the 10 March 2021 John Chalgrove added a fully referenced article that highlighted Lord Nugent’s fictional account of Hampden and the Battle to the Wiki John Hampden page. Lord Nugent was a charlatan and writer of fiction that has fooled historians, academics and Stevenson & Carter. The revelation that Stevenson & Carter’s article in Oxoniensia Vol 38 is based on Nugent’s fiction on which Robinvp11 draws heavily leaves his interpretations of John Hampden and the Battle in tatters. Robinvp11’s removal of a valid fully referenced contribution from the John Hampden Wiki page is in breach of Wikipedia’s ideals.

The revelation that Lord Nugent faked the historical record is to feature in several erudite publications. For academics this is BIG news – really BIG news. Wikipedia’s administrators and/or in this case an editor are at liberty to edit the webpages’ content as they please. Wikipedia’s content is questioned for its accuracy by academics, it is viewed as being inferior. Jimmy Wales has done a brilliant job to bring knowledge to the masses by the masses. Trust is a fragile commodity that can be undone in a flash. The case of Lord Nugent’s deception is one such issue that if left uncorrected could damage Wikipedia’s reputation. Lord Nugent’s fictional accounts have sullied the historical record of all the major English Civil War Battles.

The matter is in Wikipedia’s hands and hope independent administrators will review this case and re-instate John Hampden regiment’s and John Chalgrove’s articles. John Chalgrove (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You would find it helpful in getting others to listen if you (a) spent time reading what they write, and (b) appearing slightly less artificial (we've all heard the 'I'm only interested in the integrity of Wikipedia" line before).

I will do you the courtesy of responding to these points if you first apologise unreservedly for the various accusations quoted below and elsewhere. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a passer-by: Wikipedia is not the news, nor does it prioritize keeping up with the latest news at all costs.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John Hampden. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Xover (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re Arbitration suggestion

Steve – The editor Robvp11 of Wiki page John Hampden is known to me and he knows my identity. We have known each other for over 30 years but 10 years ago we fell out for what reason is known only to Robvp11. We have met and had drinks together many times since over the years. Robvp11 has in depth knowledge regarding John Hampden’s life. Was it jealousy that caused the upset, who knows, but ‘John Chalgrove’ become ‘the’ authority on the battle of Chalgrove? On 19 April 2019 Robvp11 removed four years of detailed contributions input by Johnhampdensegiment, my then username, from the Battle of Chalgrove Field webpage. My complaint to Wiki that years of work had be removed resulted in my editing rights being taken away. My polite argument to the administrators resulted in confrontation at every turn. It is my suspicion that Robvp11 has friends in high places on Wiki’s team that will do his bidding regardless.

My fully referenced input on the John Hampden page ‘Nugent’s Fabricated Account of Hampden – Uncovered’ confirmed my academic argument. This brief piece is of global importance to the history of the English Civil War and Robvp11 will lose face among his peers if my contribution gets on the John Hampden page. Going through the usual channels of dispute is not an option Robvp11 has too much to lose and the power to censor my work through Wikipedia' adminstrators. Academia will be the poorer if Robvp11 is allowed to corrupt Wikipedia’s good name. Can you resolve this issue? (John Chalgrove (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC))

I looked at this out of idle curiosity, partly because I've never understood why this bothers you so much. It is clear you are labouring under several delusions.

The editor Rob(in)vp11 of Wiki page John Hampden is known to me and he knows my identity. We have known each other for over 30 years but 10 years ago we fell out for what reason is known only to Rob(in)vp11. I have no idea who you are and I guarantee I'd remember if we'd met. Until 2016 I'd been out of the UK entirely for 30 plus years. And who on earth is 'John Chalgrove?'

Rob(in)vp11 has in depth knowledge regarding John Hampden’s life. Nice of you to say so of course but becoming an "expert" took me a couple of days looking at multiple online sources. Research is easier when you're not trying to prove a specific point.

It is my suspicion that Rob(in)vp11 has friends in high places on Wiki’s team that will do his bidding regardless. If only...there is an alternative explanation as to why your demands have been ignored by over half a dozen separate editors.

‘Nugent’s Fabricated Account of Hampden – Uncovered’ confirmed my academic argument. This has been explained to you over and over and over and over again, and is why you were blocked in the first place. Wikipedia articles cannot contain original research - I don't know what that is so hard to accept.

I've been polite and patient; I have detailed my objections on the Talkpage several times. You have never responded to any of them, other than to make unsubstantiated and unjustified accusations of censorship, bias etc etc. This needs to stop; maybe its time for you to move onto a different topic. That's a suggestion, btw.

Robinvp11 (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at George Nugent-Grenville, 2nd Baron Nugent. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]