Talk:Kay Hawtrey

The considerations against speedy deletion of wiki page Kay Hawtrey

Notification of an intended speedy deletion of the wiki entry for Kay Hawtrey has been posted.

Upon reading the notification of intention I read this Kay Hawtrey page and found it immensely interesting. There is no other page on Wikipedia which gives any depth to the Hawtrey family.

I have in fact created a link to this page as it is now modified by me to the section the Hawtrey family from the Early developments section on the Eastcote page where in that section —where it is first mentioned in the first three words— there is much some interesting information of the family at Eastcote. Further depth of the family can only be found on this the Kay Hawtrey page.

The modest life of Kay Hawtrey herself is nice and it may not be quite worth a Wikipedia entry. But I should consider this page of great value. I consider what I read here of the Hawtrey family history fascinating, that it should be retained for it is nowhere else in this encyclopedia, and here are my words towards it.

regards _ --Laurencebeck (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to address the issues claimed. But regardless of your views on the topic, there very little information on his person to justify an article. Especially when there are ZERO sources backing any claims in this article. Quite frankly, I am surprised that it has lasted this long without it being addressed, other articles have been deleted for less. MisterShiney ✉ 13:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is possible to say that Miss Hawtrey would have primary sources in her possession or knew where they would be yet unpublished I believe it would very well mean ZERO to Wikipedia. Secondary sources is the real material for Wikipedia ( except exceptions , of course ) regards _ --Laurencebeck (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

---

re recent deletion edits the article — Well you're certainly taking up your position . .but I don't know where it is. --Laurencebeck (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The position that an article about an actress should tell us about the actress, not give us over 2.5x as much information about her surname and ancestors as about her and her career (82 words versus 228 words). The position also that material needs to be sourced. The position that arguments along the lines of "other articles have similar material so this can too" are very weak arguments on Wikipedia. Bencherlite^Talk 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

yes, yes, I am sure you are very practiced . . but my question to myself was , in a round about way was that I didn't know where YOU were ( in the scheme of things . .)

--Laurencebeck (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Bencherlite^Talk 23:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Reason: MisterShiney harrassed me on my user page beginning April 20, 2013. see User talk:JohnClarknew. Then, on this same date, he created a delete for this article. This is a clear case of WP:HAR, creates a severe form of WP:CIV, and a definite WP:COI. I have therefore reverted his edit back to where it was when he decided to, er, teach me a lesson? This user will certainly use best efforts to improve the page by supplying suitable references and sources and perhaps a bibliography. There is much material available to improve the page from where it is at present. Meanwhile, in my opinion, I believe he should be blocked from editing this article. I have the same response to any activity from the participants of the Talk:John Le Mesurier page. This has been the subject of controversy, and if they attempt to edit, it will create a serious WP:COI. Of course, they are welcome to pitch their views here on the talk page, with civility. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Within literally minutes, SchroCat added back content already addressed. He is a harsh participant on the Talk:John Le Mesurier and User talk:Jimbo Wales pages, and was blocked for his uncivil behavior. A clear case of WP:COI I have removed it for the reasons I just gave, and urge any further action to take place after discussion on this talk page. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the tags as they point to the various issues on the page. Do not remove them without discussions please. With regard to the above, I was not blocked for being uncivil: I was temporaryily blocked because the admin thought I had been edit warring. When they realised that I was reverting a BLP violation the block was lifted. Once again, reversions can take place for BLP violations, which was the case on JLM, and is the case here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you contact admin User talk:King of Hearts to refresh your memory that you were blocked for your vulgar language used in the dispute, not for edit warring! You even cited the c word to the admin. Deleting all reference to this in your user talk page doesn't make it go away. WP won't let you unring the bell, that's its genius. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

JohnClarknew, you should have realised by now that when material is removed for not having a source (and for being frankly irrelevant to this article) you should not re-add it without a source and some attempt to explain why an encyclopaedia entry about her needs to have 2.5x as much information about her surname and her (asserted) ancestors as about her and her career. Bencherlite^Talk 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry...I am harassing you...? Pray tell how? I would also like to point out that if indeed this is the case than either you or your chums go over to the relevant Admin Board and file a report there. Revenge Editing...? Care you explain? Conflict of Interest? I have no relation to the person who this relates biography relates to. I am a drifter. I will read one page, see a link that takes my fancy and go visit. If I see something that needs changing/working on, then I will make the relevant changes and or set things in motions using tags. Your accusations are preposterous and I should urge you to comment on the content and not the editor, as you have just so recently done with your comments of "I have therefore reverted his edit back to where it was when he decided to, er, teach me a lesson?". It would appear on the surface that you are the one with the WP:CIV issues and not Assuming Good Faith just because I have delivered a couple of helpful pointers that you in your infinite wisdom have taken the wrong way. The world is not against you...I would even be surprised if the world even knows who you are. I shall be copying this part of the message to your talk page for your reply.

Back on topic, as has previously been determined, please provide a source and reasons why the "history lesson" is relevant to an article about an actress? -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a life which you 3 may not, and I'm filming up in the mountains for the next few days. Meanwhile, I'm not spending more time on this. Just to let you know that I consider you to be in violation of WP:MEAT and WP:VAN. I have already taken appropriate steps. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you go an add a WP:SOCK accusation to that as well? -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You will know whether you are a sockpuppet, Mister. If you are, then you can add it. Administrators will take care of you. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Because that is exactly what I was saying. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your complete unfounded accusations. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

JohnClarknew, is it your sole intention to piss as many people off as you can? MisterShiney is an exemplary editor, and too see you trolling here too is sending out a clear message to all who reads it. The common denominator is clearly you as wherever you go there seems to be an atmosphere of incivility and bad faith. -- Cassianto^Talk 02:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A priori, I am tired of your adumbrated minacious posture, Cassianto, Mister, and Schrocat, and that goes for the rest of your group fabulists. Your clubby pretense in expertise has the appearance of an overwritten palimpsest, causing me to seek relief from an anodyne. Your pixilated yet polemical antics don't match your putative claim to knowledge, it is merely sciolism at its worst. It's time you learned to tergiversate and apostatize. Apotheosis in WP does not exist and your attempts to balkanize efforts with the enforcement procedures of a caudillo is indeed the true threatening behavior. Which of you is the eminence grise in this situation? WP's epistemology clearly escapes you. My education is not fungible with your ignorance. Your attempts at hegemony are laughable and ineluctable. You bear the guilt of scienter. I would rather you macerate your manqué experience, and accept guidance from a solon, a patrician, such as myself, and shed your solipsistic approach. Your behaviors are that of a tomnoddy. JohnClarknew (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank god for copy and paste. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)