User talk:Boscaswell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Boscaswell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Glastonbury Abbey. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Rod talk 08:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agatha Christie aka "dude"[edit]

Nice find! I've read one biography and numerous biographical articles about her but had never heard about the surfing. Who knew? Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a news story in the UK. Some research has been done recently on papers of hers, I think, and this came out of it. Actually, I added something on the Article about it at almost precisely the same time as another editor and deleted my edit as his was more complete [tho less well written IMO!]. But it is pretty amazing...the Daily Telegraph story in particular - clearly she loved surfing! Boscaswell (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bowie's beliefs[edit]

Hi Boscaswell. I hope you dont feel as though your work isn't appreciated. Your passage on Bowie's beliefs was well written and I know you put a few hours work into it. If it was just me in my near ignorance of the subject I'd have no issue at all with it. Others do though (almost all of them). As i mentioned in talk, what matters is neither promoting his belief or lack of, and striking the right balance. This is obviously a contentious issue which would require consensus in talk.WisconsinPat (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments, Pat. I appreciate them. I'm beginning to be over it, though, I have to say. I feel that the real reason behind all the cricitism I'm copping for my work is that what is being presented (and it is being presented because it has been there all along waiting to be presented) cuts across what a lot of people want to believe about Bowie, their hero. That he was forever changing (of course)' was however he wanted to be, and didn't care about what anyone thought about him, least of all God. Except that he did care about God. The thing is that almost the only way to get his views across in something like this is to quote them. And what happens then? Too many quotes. Apparently. All the best to you. Boscaswell (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I can understand putting in so much effort into something and then seeing it being critiqued (or in this case removed) can be annoying. I honestly don't know if there is any agenda on his beliefs. Id like to think not. Write out a draft of what you think is suitable for the article, and then if critiqued give reasons why a certain section should be in there. Chop and change the draft until it gains consensus. I'd like to think wiki editors are generally fair.WisconsinPat (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's annoying, WisconsinPat To put it mildly. I feel a bit like the innocent bloke who goes into a bar in Texas, gets beaten up by all the good ol' boys and then gets charged by the Sherriff for having been there in the first place. It's that kind of "annoying". I used to think that Wiki editors were generally fair, but this experience has told me otherwise. I've said it many times but I'll say it again (what the heck, eh?) There are a lot of people who simply cannot cope with the idea that actually, Bowie gave a huge amount of consideration, throughout his career, to his spirituality. And that actualité, Pat, is supported 100% by the quotes. Which I'm not allowed to have in. You see where I'm coming from? Goodnight! Boscaswell (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
and by the way, WisconsinPat, you say "give reasons for why a certain section should be there." That is just what I did this afternoon! For *every* small change I made this afternoon, I gave ample reason for the change in the edit summary. In every case. All of this was ignored completely. Did you read *any* of them yourself, before just going ahead and reverting, twice? Be honest, please. All I seem to be getting from you is crocodile tears, mate. Boscaswell (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

read the Shapps talk page please[edit]

And kindly revert. Placing the EXACT SAME SENTENCE twice in a paragraph is beyond normal overkill. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Crikey. My sincerest apologies. A horrible mistake on my part. Boscaswell talk 19:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
All is forgiven <g> Collect (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Crabb (MP)[edit]

I liked your edit this morning. However, you are tending to alter other contributors work very soon after they compose it without really explaining why. Could you use the talk page more often please - this is a rapidly-developing biography and highly relevant to wider current events in the UK. --Dr Greg Wood (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dr Greg Wood: thanks for your message. I usually do go overboard on explaining why, but this time only used the word "trim". That is a fairly good explanation in itself, but it doesn't give the reason why I thought it needed it, although in this case it was fairly obvious that the new and additional info re. his early life was simply too long, perhaps I needed to make that clear. There is one very busy and most likely very arrogant admin who abbreviates edit summaries to the limit, eg. "rm tr" Eh, I thought? Remove trivia, he was saying. There was of course no explanation of why what he thought we hat he removed was trivia, but I managed to get one from him, what he called trivia was reinstated, and it's still in the article. So I'll provide more info in the edit summary.
I get your point about Talk pages. The one whose edit I was trimming does not have a username, tho, and so I think it's safe to say that s/he is highly unlikely to read the Talk page. And I have to say that there are many prolific editors who don't pay talk pages much attention at all.
The bio is indeed rapidly-developing. Some would say too, tho, that it is rapidly-expanding. Your edits have been great, and clearly you know far more about such things as WRAG than I do! But we all need to be wary of adding too much to an article. All the very best to you!
I agree whole-heartedly that this bio is highly relevant to wider current events in the UK. Boscaswell talk 13:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks! Dr Greg Wood (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)