User talk:The Happy Potter

May 2024

Hello, I'm Air on White. I noticed that you recently removed content from Bungaroosh without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Air on White (talk) 04:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the information is completely inaccurate . The man who wrote is not a specialist just an ex planning officer .

1. It is bungaroosh or bungarouch the other names are made up.

2. The facts are inaccurate.

3. Bungaroosh is a material that has never failed. All the regency period building standing are a testament to that.

4. The nonsense about crumbling and being in some way related to other products is also made up .

5. The entire article is U.N. factual and based on no knowledge at all.

6. It needs a thorough edit .

7. read this link

https://www.heritagebuildingadvisors.co.uk/projects/bungaroosh

8. I have know Neil England for thirty five years and he is the expert in bungaroosh as if you contact the IHBC they will confirm .

unless you can dispute and of this please do not put back up this utter nonsense. The Happy Potter (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

please re-remove the nonsense that chap wrote?

the IHBC reconises Neil ( a member) as the authority on Bungaroosh. The information Ron posted is not only very very wrong but is costing people money as insurance companies are referring to this !

there is no definitive book or document that can be referred to but Neil England recently gave a lecture to some local prominent architects, the head of the local Institute of Historic building conservation and many others.

the problem is huge . Trains arrived in Brighton in 1841 so the comment about “ using old railway sleepers to build them” is not only pure fantasy but impossible.

the quote “ you could aim a hose in Brighton….” Is also nonsense and show how Wikipedia allows fiction not fact. The lime cement used hardens exponentially and this means after two hundred years it is similar to stone plus it is plastered in line render.

why are all these building still standing?

are you this guy who wrote all this fantasy?

feel free to contact me but if you continue to put up nonsense we will move this up a notch.

put it back please it’s embarrassing The Happy Potter (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bungaroosh

Wikipedia articles use reliable published material (ideally secondary sources) to summarise what has been published about a topic. The article in its original state was an example of that: all statements were cited to books or reports. If subsequent research suggests that some of the claims made are no longer true or accurate, the correct procedure is:

Identify and, if possible, provide the new source or sources (if published online, a url; if published in a journal or book, a full citation so other editors can find them in a library etc.);
Rewrite the article in a way that incorporates the old and the new.

Things that are not done on Wikipedia include: removing vast amounts of referenced text from articles and inserting unreferenced material; throwing around claims of "fantasy", "nonsense", "fiction", "very very wrong", "based on no knowledge at all" and so on; invoking the names of experts without providing and referencing their published work on a subject; and rude comments about other editors in various places (not just this talk page).

If all the information provided in the books and reports already cited in the article is so fantastical and nonsensical, I suggest you may need to contact the publishers of those books/reports to ask for the information to be redacted. However, I'm not sure that will be necessary, because having read the (very short) statement about bungaroosh in the link you provided above, I cannot really see how the description there is significantly different from the description in the article. Wikipedia articles give a broad overview of a topic, not every nuance.

I am happy to read any books/journal articles Neil England has written and collaboratively edit the article to reflect any new or changed understanding of the topic. I am less happy to see accusations of fantasy, deliberate untruth and so on: no more of that in the Wikipedia environment, please. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC) (original author of this article)[reply]

PS. The "well-aimed hose" quote which you have taken a considerable dislike to is merely an amusing aside quoted in a couple of books about the history and architecture of Brighton, not intended to be taken literally; it is used in the article as an indication of how bungaroosh has been thought of locally in the past. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bungaroosh. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Air on White (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information was completely incorrect. People that live in bungaroosh buildings are paying triple the normal building insurance because one amateur published nonsense on Wikipedia.

i will get wiki consultants to clarify this is not an edit war unless you make it one.

are non of you actually interested in facts not made up nonsense? The Happy Potter (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your incivility and do not treat Wikipedia as a battleground. The next time you make such comments, you will be reported to ANI. Air on White (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More bungaroosh

Firstly, I am not Rob Fraser: I am merely a Wikipedia editor familiar with the Brighton area who wishes to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brighton- and Sussex-related topics. (My real name is available on my user page, should you wish to view it.) Secondly, please drop the incivility and overblown language: Wikipedia is intended to be built in a collegial atmosphere, and I would be pleased to work together to improve this article (and, indeed, others); but I am unwilling to work with anybody who resorts to name-calling and denigrating good-faith contributions.

As I stated above: if you believe there are factual inaccuracies in the article, it is up to you to provide reliable published sources which correct these. So far I have only seen a short, rather chatty couple of paragraphs which, frankly, do not seem to say much that is different from what is currently in the article. I await your new sources with interest. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]