User talk:TheWoolpack

June 2022[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Peter Wyngarde. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Muzilon (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that most 'ordinary' visitors to the wikipedia site would bother visiting the talk page, much less know that it is here. Since the original piece of inaccurate information about Mr Wyngarde was posted within the body of the biography itself where it was most visible, I feel its only fair that the editors of the article do the decent thing by acknowledging wrongdoing; admitting that the named source was fabricated and apologising for the hurt caused, all in plain sight - namely within the article itself, not hidden away here. TheWoolpack (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been posted on Facebook page of the Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society at https://www.facebook.com/groups/813997125389790 and on their Wordpress website at https://peterwyngarde.wordpress.com/2020/07/22/editorial/ regarding this matter, which has been written by a Andrew Humphries who is or has been a regular contributor to Wikipedia and this particular biography. He has been researching the origin of the Kennedy Gardens story, which he has concluded is Wikipedia:-

I have been sleuthing again, because I found some blogs from 2013 and 2014 that mentioned a Kennedy Gardens incident. This was long before the 2018 Mirror article that I said was the original source, but I can see I was wrong about that. Looking at the Wikipedia article again, but going back much further, I can see that a user added the info on 28 Sept 2010, but with no source. It was only removed by another user in about June 2016 who noticed it was not sourced, or not sourced properly. It was then added back in after the Mirror article was published in Jan 2018, but without any citation of the Mirror. The true crime book was already a source for something else, and sloppy editing made it look like it was also being cited for this new info. I tend to agree with Tina now, that the earliest trace of this factoid is when a Wikipedia editor added it in 28 Sept 2010. It *appears* to have been sincerely added as a fact, and specific newspapers are mentioned, but without any proper verifiable source or citation. As for the Mirror, I think they probably had a pre-written obit for PW, perhaps prepared when that questionable info had been live on Wikipedia between 2010 and 2016. Andrew Humphries

It looks like the ball is in Wikipedia's court again. TheWoolpack (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems no point discussing historical edits that were reverted long ago. As that researcher says, the information about a 1974 arrest reverted from the Peter Wyngarde article by a diligent editor because it was unreliable, unsourced, and a low quality edit. As it happens, it was also reverted a second time after January 2018. If none of that happened soon enough for you or for this researcher, you or they should have flagged it for discussion and possible removal at the time, or you should have just reverted it yourself and explained why. Theheartof (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the lady that runs the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society and who wrote the 2020 biography attempted to edit this extremely damaging piece of fiction several years ago, but was banned from Wikipedia for her troubles. Andrew Humphries (named above) only researched the Kennedy Garden myth recently. According to the response I received from the O.P.W.A.S. after I emailed them via their website in relation to this, is that Peter Wyngarde was himself incandescent with rage over its inclusion on Wikipedia, not least when it was explained to him that WP is basically a free-for-all and that, due to most of its contributors "hiding" behind usernames, they are able to dodge libel laws. At least the author of the 'Life Amongst Strangers' biog was able to get in a few left jabs on WP and the tabloids that seem to reply on it and for that, as a life long Wyngarde fan, I'm grateful. TheWoolpack (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi TheWoolpack! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, NAME-CALLING AND PROPOSITIONING, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]