Talk:Fred Allandale

Infobox

Restoring an infobox you deleted is not vandalism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. This article had an infobox that conveyed no purpose whatsoever. The article is within the first throws of life and is very, very short. Therefore, an infobox, which, if you believe those who like them, prevent a reader from having to scan lots of laborious text to find the factoid they want, serves no purpose here whatsoever. Note: "DISINFOBOXES tend to be the product of editors interested in uniformity across the encyclopedia over the consideration of what best serves an individual article. These editors are not interested in evaluating the merit or potential usefulness of an infobox within a particular article but are rather interested in placing infoboxes en masse for their apparent professional visual appeal. The result is that these editors often add infoboxes to articles that they have not significantly contributed to or even necessarily accurately comprehended. This further compounds errors already inherent within an overly simplified method of communicating information. The result is that, rather than making Wikipedia appear more professional, the encyclopedia's reputation as an accurate and reliable source of information is damaged." (WP:DISINFOBOX). Cassianto^Talk 06:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You are citing a personal essay, not !Wikilaw. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You'd better tell the "wiki police" then; don't be impertinent. An infobox is neither prohibited nor required, that's in the MoS. More importantly, 3rr can get you blocked, so I suggest you respect that, firstly. Cassianto^Talk 06:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is some math, it take two to edit war. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the problem, you are. Cassianto^Talk 06:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this dispute at ANI. I have no interest in editing this article, but I agree with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s position. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So if you have "no interest in editing this article", what makes you think you have the right to offer an opinion on its formatting then? Cassianto^Talk 08:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no policy stipulating that an editor must be willing to edit an article in order to have the right to express an opinion about that article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't asked you to preach policy; I'm asking you why you think you have a right to dictate which formatting method we use on an article which you have no interest in and one which you have no intentions to improve. Cassianto^Talk 11:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A great example of circular reasoning by User:Cassianto's. Their contribution was removing the infobox, so that makes him an active editor of the article, and gives him the right to remove infoboxes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto, I did not suggest that I have "a right to dictate which formatting method we use" on this article; rather, I simply expressed an opinion that an infobox is appropriate. The distinction should be simple. You are incorrect in stating that I have no interest in the article; I am expressing an interest in it, by commenting on it. As your comments are unreasonable, there is little point in making further responses. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, well thanks for popping by! Cassianto^Talk 00:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• An info box is of no benefit here. I had come to this article a couple of days ago to add some refs as it only had, in my opinion, one very dubious ref. I discovered an info box populated with even more unreferenced content had been added; I reverted as I felt (and still do) that an IB is redundant in such a basic stub article. For my trouble I have been labelled as "tag team" and a surrogate added to which the protecting admin has daubed me as edit warring (see his edit summary) while he is apparently considering blocking me ("... ... or any other involved users is blockable" - note the plural of users). SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • had been added: the infobox was present from the very first revision. This isn't the usual case of an infobox being added long after an article was created; the article creator intended there to be an infobox. clpo13_(talk) 23:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Where was the consensus to add it on day one? Cassianto^Talk 00:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Ahh, I see; so it's being obtuse to ask "where was the consensus to add [an infobox] on day one", yet it's an essential stone-bonker to request a consensus for when you want to remove it. Typical of the infobox light-brigade to bend the rules to suit themselves. What an amazing display of WP:OWNERSHIP, right there. Cassianto^Talk 07:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
• I have now added some better refs to the article although I do appreciate stagebeauty.net is far from great. I will also re-iterate that I feel the IB is completely redundant on this article as it is so short and the IB contains no information that is not very quickly gleaned from the text. I will wait to see if those opposing its removal actually make any referenced edits to the article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

First wife

I believe Allandale's first wife may have been Ella(?) Blume and that they were married in London towards the end of September 1899. Perhaps someone may be able to trace a ref for it to confirm? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)