Talk:Nicolas Gage, 8th Viscount Gage

The "bonfire controversy" portion of this article has been taken down for WP:NPOV, WP:V and zero sources. Editing to this page should include verifiable third-party sources and be posted on this Talk: page prior for discussion prior to being included in the article.--BradPatrick 19:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the original article some time ago. A newcomer to wikipedia at the time, I apologize for what evidentally was a poorly written article. I am not from Firle, have never been to Firle, and have no opinion concerning the viscount, gypsies, or the bonfire controversy there. I apologize for having violated NPOV in my mentioning it in this article. My only concern was to research and write as much detail as I could concerning a public figure who (at the time) had no wikipedia biography. Most of the google hits I encountered at the time for the current Viscount Gage concerned the bonfire controversy, so I opted to include a report of it here. If I erred in doing so, I apologize. My intent was to be thorough -- not biased.

Per your instructions, I am not editing this article any further and am instead posting to this page for discussion and reconsideration by yourself and other administrators. I would politely and respectfully submit that the original information I wrote should be re-included, subject (of course) to any editing you feel is necessary to purge it of POV. It was never my intent to write a biased article. Also, I apologize for providing zero sources. I should have cited the sources I used and apologize for this oversight. I have tried to reassemble the various sources I originally used in composing this article. Please find them listed below, in chronological order. Again, it was never my intention to compose a poor article, and I apologize to Administrator BradPatrick for having apparently violated so many wikipedia rules in my writing this. Thanks for your time and patience with me! 66.17.118.207 19:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Gypsy effigies burnt on bonfire BBC News (October 28, 2003)
• Outrage as 'gipsies' are set alight at village party news.telegraph (October 30, 2003)
• Bonfire sparks complaints of racism BBC News (October 30, 2003)
• Apology for burning gypsy effigy Firle Bonfire Society (November 3, 2003)
• Acceptable hatred: Beneath the enduring hostility to Gypsies lies an ancient envy of the nomadic life The Guardian (November 4, 2003)
• Gypsy Family in Caravan Effigy Burned by Viscount UK Indymedia (November 4, 2003)
• Four held in gipsy bonfire probe The Argus (November 11, 2003)
• Six arrested on gipsy bonfire charges news.telegraph (November 12, 2003)
• Seven arrests over burnt gypsy effigy BBC News (November 12, 2003)
• A burning issue in the village The Observer (November 16, 2003)
• Peer's bonfire race plea The Argus (November 17, 2003)
• A Burning Issue Commission for Racial Equality, Connections (Winter 2003/4)
• CPS decision on Firle Bonfire case Crown Prosecution Service (July 7, 2004)
• Response to CPS decision on Firle bonfire case Commission for Racial Equality (July 7, 2004)
• Alliance to fight anti-Gypsy racism Independent Race and Refugee News Network (July 20, 2004)

Seeing no further complaint I am reinstating the section with all these helpfully added references. Ashibaka tock 23:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought: the only source that mentions Henry Gage himself is an Indymedia report. Indymedia is definitely not a "reliable source". Ashibaka tock 23:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been my concern the entire time. The issue is not the event, but the purported reference to Gage himself.--BradPatrick 14:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept the ruling of Ashibaka and BradPatrick and apologize for trying to include this information. With all due respect, Indymedia is not the only source I cited mentioning Viscount Gage. The Argus contains two direct quotes from him on the matter and The Guardian makes it clear the entire controversy began with acts of alledged poaching and vandalism on "the estate, home to Henry Gage, the eighth Viscount Gage". Whether these are reliable sources, (and/or provide sufficient connection to the viscount) I leave to your judgment. Further I politely submit to BradPatrick -- you most certainly did not state "the purported reference to Gage" was your concern the entire time. Perhaps this was on your mind, but you never said so in your original objection. Had you asked for sources citing a more direct connection to Gage that would've been different. You said I violated "WP:NPOV, WP:V and zero sources" rules. I still maintain 1) there was no POV in what I wrote, 2) I provided sources (albeit very lately), and 3) I submit to you the information as originally written was verifiable. If your concern all along was that the connection to Gage personally was weak, you should have said so. That was not listed anywhere in your original list of grievances. I politely submit to you: as an administrator removing material others have worked to write, you owe contributors the courtesy of more specific objections when deleting our work. I respect your judgment and ruling. But had you told me the weak connection to Gage was your real problem from the beginning, that may have considerably shortened this debate. That being said -- I accept your final ruling on the issue and consider the matter closed. Again, my apologies for trying to include material that should not have been here. 66.17.118.207 20:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

restart

ok, i have started with a new article, the times article on firle place indicates notability to me. i don't see any discussion about why a redirect is indicated. Accotink2 talk 16:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6953931.ece. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)