Talk:Military history of Birmingham

would this page be easier on the eye if it were formed in chronological order? Any one care to have a go? Nick Boulevard 21:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyright issue

The text about the Gun Quarter copied from http://www.virtualbrum.co.uk/history/bull.htm is a transcript of the history of the Gun Quarter that is displayed on a large plaque on the side wall of the pub Price Street. As webmaster of VirtualBrum.I have no objection to use of this text. --Vbrum 19:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're also the copyright holder of the text on the plaque, all this tells us is that you've got a copyright violation on your own site too.

Andy Mabbet I presume (no sig), as far as I am aware the words are not an exact copy and even if they are we have two scenarios here: (a) The wording is within the public deomain, I very much suspect, (b) I can remove the violation of the text and re-write the information that I know to be true. Either way the article will definatelt stay albeit with the violation removed. To save further argument I will do this, I have been meaning to change this page for a while anyway :) Nick Boulevard 22:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should stay as is, I see no reason why it shouldn't, especially after the only (as far as I am aware) source of the aforementioned copyright violation has been authorised by the webmaster of that site, the same applies to gun quarter, the article now exists on the temp sub page. 195.92.67.74 15:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The webmaster of the site you stole the text from has admitted he is not the copyright holder (it is, according to the photo on his site, a recent plaque which he has taken all the text from without alteration).

Andy Mabbet, I have proven that Virtual Brum are happy for wikipedia to to use that particular passage as part of our brum work, it is now up to you to prove that the creators of the plaque are not happy for two extensive websites referring to Brum (both with links to their quarter) to use their brief wording that could so easily be re written in a fresh form anyway? I want to see a signed piece of paper or at least an authorative confirmation here of your contact of the creator/s of the aforementioned plaque Nick Boulevard 00:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I feel extremely ill at ease having to stoop to Andy Mabbets level. (shakes head in utter boredom of anal shenanigans) Nick Boulevard 00:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way this works. We've established that the text is not old enough to be out of copyright, you haven't established that the copyright holder agrees to release it under an appropriate licence, so it must go.

Ok offending copyright removed in temp article, the article stays (cheers all around)

From the /Temp re-write talk page

Ok, as far as I am aware the copyright material was sourced from Virtualbrum.co.uk, the webmaster has cleared the use of this material himself see Birmingham military history discussion, this also mitigates Gun Quarter, if anyone can provide evidence that we cannot use this text because of copyright control then we can simply delete the offending passage as opposed to the entire article, a heck of a lot of work has gone into these pages from many wikipedians. 195.92.67.75 22:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to know where to begin to rescue this article. Half-sentences, large chunks of text which seem to have been ripped out of a Victorian work without any consideration of relevance or context, irrelevant material. And due to an administrative oversight this (and a couple of other Birmingham-related pages) were removed from the copyright violation list without being dealt with - I'm going to re-list them. I'm also going to comment out most of the text of the page, so it can be restored in a form which is both logical, and suitable for an encyclopedia. In fact, looking at some of the text, it seems to be from a fairly modern source, and given the history of copyright violation on this page it seems safer not to restore anything until it has been sourced. --Brumburger 10:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to simply add the relevant facts to History of Birmingham and do away with this strange page? Andy Mabbett 10:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not, this page does need restructuring but the military history of the city is extensive and there is more to come yet hence it definately needs it's own page/article. 195.92.67.65 18:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting topic, but it would really need writing from scratch with rigorous documentation of what goes in, *as* it goes in (and none of the tenuous connections of the - I caricature - "Birmingham made choclate and lots of WW2 soldiers ate chocolate so chocolate comes under military history" type). The Victorian material appears to come from Showell's directory. (PS Isn't it bliss?). RayGirvan 10:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is an interesting topic Ray and rather making arrogant and condesending comments why don't you actually put some work into the article instead of critisizing. 195.92.67.65 18:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there are several possible locations for what used to be here, and given the large amount of duplication in Birmingham articles, most of it is probably already also in these places:

I suggest the article is deleted once anything which isn't in those articles has been moved there. (I think the absence of nightly reverts and personal abuse is probably due to half-term holidays). --Brumburger 11:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. RayGirvan 11:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again absolutely opose this, the article should stay as it is way too big for the history section etc, it should be in one easily accessible place. 195.92.67.65 18:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed most of the obvious nonsense, duplications from other articles (that I could find) and irrelevant material. What we're left with seems to be a small amount of trivia, some huge and not entirely relevant chunks of Victoriana, and some potentially interesting stuff about arms production (which should probably go into an article about Birmingham's industrial history, rather than here). --Brumburger 13:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the article to how it was after the copyright violations were removed, deleting this article or filtering it away will be down right vandalism, there is much more to come yet and instead of talking about how we can get rid of it why don't you actually help wikipedia by structuring the article, It would be nice to see it listed in chronological order. 195.92.67.65 18:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Brumburger that it's not salvageable without vastly more work than writing it from scratch. At the very least, it fails to cite sources, so anyone trying to edit it would have to check and source every single statement. RayGirvan 21:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dissagree, the article will have it's sources so I will personally seek them out, if anything needs re-writing I will do that also, it's a great article and a valuble asset to Brum article. Nick Boulevard 22:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If anything needs rewriting, Wikipedia users (including you) will do it collectively. That's what you buy into by writing here. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it. Which bit of that don't you understand? RayGirvan 22:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again please do not try condesending me Ray, you seem to become quite frustrated when your work here is reverted or deleted so think how I feel when Andy Mabbett deletes whole articles of factual content like is happening here. Also, WHEN exactly have I minded my work being edited? I will grant it that I do become frustrated with Andy Mabbett stalking my every move here (of which I must say is rather flatering considering your/his low opinion of my work) I think that it is enlightening to watch my many contributions edited down and formulated into professional looking articles, great well done, just don't delete it, by the way I have edited under different ip addresses due to my P.C. and to be perfectly honest I am not after the kudos of associating my user name with any firsts like for instance cancer research or Alexander Parkes if I create something that blossoms then I am happy, I just add for fun and out of enjoyment. Nick Boulevard 20:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted to the long version of this article. While it could probably do with a bit of a cleanup, this is a pretty good, detailed article of the sort I'd expect to see here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, there is loads more that I will add once this artcile is stabilized, it really does need a clean up but please can we not conveniently lose parts unless of course it is copyright (which was removed). Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of it is already in other more relevant articles in exactly the same wording (see the page's edit history),

Where? Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

some of it is nonsense (what is the (complete) paragraph "in 1797 and The Loyal Birmingham Volunteers in 1803. These were some of the forerunners to what was to become The Royal Warwickshire Regiment," supposed to mean?),

All the info is there you just need to formulate it better as I said it the start of the discussion Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

some of it is irrelevant (the alleged invention of the fire detector - Darby's design worked by a block of butter melting, and it's extremely unlikely that it was used in military vehicles), some of it is patently untrue (HMS Birmingham sunk a U-boat in 1920?). I edited out most of the rubbish and left the remainder in comments, awaiting restoration in a form more suitable for here (there's a large paragraph starting "The official natal day..." which is lifted verbatim from a Victorian work with no indication as to what the subject or the source is). User:Nick Boulevard will be the subject of an RfC over the next couple of days - there are dozens of Birmingham-related articles which he has filled with unsourced material much of which turns out to be either untrue or copyright violation (some of the remaining paragraphs seem to be modern and too well-written to be Nick's own work).

I think that your horrible attitude here speaks volumes Andy, why are you so unkind about my work, I admit that I am not a perfect wikipedian but compared to you I must be a saint... surely? Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the comments from the cleaned-up version, which at least doesn't contain any blatant inaccuracies even if it doesn't make much sense either. --Brumburger 11:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strongly seconded. Basically, the problem is that none of it can trusted. It's a whole mess of unattributed material written by a user who has repeatedly failed to cite sources, writes with a permanent pro-Birmingham slant, and persistently reverts edits to remove irrelevancies, reasoned corrections of errors, edits toward NPOV, and reorganise in a way that makes sense. He has also complained to an admin previously, if that's what brought you here. RayGirvan 12:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cite many sources Ray, I am from Birmingham and I would argue that in actual fact I often battle people like yourself and Andy Mabbett (could be from the same odious little toad family) to ensure that Birmingham related articles are fair and balanced, sometimes I do over guild the lilly but I can assure members reading this that is through sheer enthusiasm for what I am writing. Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the first HMS Birmingham did sink U-15 in August 1914. The Birmingham Loyal Association was formed in 1797 and The Loyal Birmingham Volunteers in 1803. In short, the claim that none of this can be trusted seems to rest on ignorance, though it does I admit contain some unverifiable claims, at least one of which (military applications of Darby's fire alarm) has been identified. The wording is often archaic in places, and yes it's rather confusing--this means it needs cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be honest when I started writing this article I think I did probably take some bits'n'bobs from an ancient online book from the 1800's which is out of copyright, there is a link to it on the main Brum page. Other info I know to be true. Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You'll rapidly find that he won't allow cleanup, and that's why it's contentious. The mistrust doesn't rest on ignorance but on track record of dealing with Nick on other Birmingham-related articles.

Rubbish, I am quite friendly and polite to those who deserve it, why should I offer an open hand of friendship to someone that would willing stab me in the back? Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The archaic language identifies large chunks as coming verbatim from Showell's Guide [1]: OK, that's out of copyright, but it should be credited (and guidelines anyway are Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources). Other bits, though

"As the appetite of the armed services for weapons and equipment ... plus a host of other items" - see [2]

"took in their stride the production of a whole miscellany" and following - see [3]

Chad Valley material - see [4]

Chad valley article was added when I first came here and some of the content from there MAY have been added if I thought it was ok to copy and paste from an existing Wiki article. Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

appear to be copyvios. RayGirvan 12:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If he's a problem user, and attempts to communicate with him don't succeed, start a user-conduct RFC to get third party views. This may well solve any problems you have. WP:RFC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary Tony, I am quite approachable. Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's coming up when I get the time (there's a lot of stuff to be collated because his behaviour on this particular article is the tip of the iceberg, and he often doesn't log on so it's difficult to track his edits accurately - the four or five anonymous edits to this page from different dialup IP numbers are actually by the same person). The original article gave two conflicting dates for the Volunteer corps, and Nick kept reverting to include both dates (and the obviously wrong one for the U-boat sinking) - as Ray says, that's typical. Most of it may be right, but if he doesn't cite sources, there's no way to check, and enough of what he has added has been proven wrong for suspicion of everything to be justified in the absence of references. People have been trying to discuss things rationally with him for months, and usually they just get a lot of personal abuse in return. --Brumburger 13:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not true Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seemed to be no serious disagreement with my suggestion that the subject matter (but not the badly- compiled content) be merged into the generic Birmingham history article. Some of the subject matter is of no real relevance to the city (HMS Birmingham?!?), and other parts are only relevant in a wider historical context (and vice versa). Andy Mabbett 14:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I seriously dissagree, this article is extensive and is growing and should not be merged and lost in the general history section where it will be easy for you to vandalise Andy :) Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

QED. Andy Mabbett 22:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett

Just to let you all know, Andy Mabbett and Brumburger are one and the same and although RayGirvan seems to be someone completely different I still would not put it past Andy to create him (I apologise Ray if you are who you claim), Andy does seem to go to great lengths to delete everything I write It's just that I really cannot be bothered to list it all as nothing ever changes. Nick Boulevard 20:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Amazingly my work is so awfull and not worthy of wikipedia that both Andy Mabbett (pigs on wing) and RayGirvan took great pleasure last night of simultaneously editing my work, quite a team guys, keep up the good work. :) Nick Boulevard 21:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First we see a large edit and addition to the Celluloid article by the cumbersome Nick Boulevard then moments after Nicks departure the greater speckled AndyMabbett creeps from his hidey hole immediately pecking away in a blind panic at the recent additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celluloid&diff=14765430&oldid=14764258

Then moments later a lessor yellow bellied RayGirvan can be seen flitting down and chewing on the leftovers, how very bizarre: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celluloid&diff=0&oldid=14765430

Copyright

The owner of virtualbrum.co.uk has today confirmed to me independently that he granted and grants permission for the use of the duplicate material from his site on Wikipedia.—Theo (Talk) 30 June 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Did he also confirm that he owns the copyright of that material? Andy Mabbett 30 June 2005 17:42 (UTC)

That is not the issue. The question was about whether Wikipedia breached his copyright or vice versa. Given that the similar texts were on his site before they were on Wikipedia, the latter is moot and his confirmation of consent addresses the former. If you now wish to identify breaches of other copyrights in Wikipedia material, then that is up to you.—Theo (Talk) 30 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

See VBum's edit of 19:48, 17 May 2005 (at the top of this page, at the time i write this). Andy Mabbett 30 June 2005 19:13 (UTC)

I have seen that. I am unable to tell from that which elements of the Virtual Brum page are copied from the plaque. I have suggested that User:Vbrum indicates on his website which elements are reproduced from other sources with permission. If you can show that specific elements breach a copyright, then we can address those. We may need to ask Birminham City Council if they have put the plaque text into the public domain. Or we can use the form: "a plaque reads:" if it is enough of a selection to be fair use. Assuming that you are local, maybe you can check the plaque.—Theo (Talk) 30 June 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Cleanup required

The material from Walter Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham is on Google Books ([5]). It clearly should be used as a reference, not verbatim. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of Birmingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]