Talk:Ashurst Wood

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles UK geography Start‑class Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• If there is not a
  [?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of
  [?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, MortimerCat (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakedtruthpublications: @Charlesdrakew: @David J Johnson: Please all calm down.

It looks as if a new editor has arrived to make constructive edits (albeit with a username which sounds as if it represents a company, therefore needs to be changed), but has had a hard time. His/her first edit was unsourced and was automatically tagged as "possible vandalism" by a robot, although it appears to be absolutely correct - see the Village Council website http://www.ashurstwood-vc.gov.uk/. They added that link as an External link in their next edit. In the next two edits they added info about the Neighbourhood plan, with an inline link to the official website where the whole pdf file can be found. This is not spam, but the local democratic planning process. They then made an unsourced edit about local festival, and a note about the council's change of name; provided a link in some existing unsourced BLP content; bolded a couple of terms and added sourced (inline again) content about the village hall. And were reverted with "Rv unsourced and embedded link.". Talk about

The article as it stands is way out of date, talking about the parish council as at 2007 etc. This new editor didn't understand how to make a reference so was adding inline links to relevant websites, a reasonable thing to do. More experienced editors reverted but didn't offer much by way of guidance. The new editor didn't know about edit-warring etc. He was threatened with being blocked.

How about, instead of reverting all these sensible edits, offering helpful advice to the new editor, and/or fixing the article by turning the inline refs into proper refs, or adding {{

To Nakedtruthpublications: I hope you won't be put off by this treatment of your edits, and will continue to help build the encyclopedia. There's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey. It's a pity that on your journey you encountered such a hostile response so early. Good luck with your editing. (I need to be elsewhere rather soon to run the 2pm bingo session at the local care home, or I might have stuck around to try to rebuild the article myself right now, but haven't got the time ...)! PamD 13:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your positive contribution to this article. I look forward to completing it and have already requested a change of name. 194.150.38.93 (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was and am quite calm thank you. The new editor needs to understand that this is an encyclopaedia page, not the village website. We do not want trivia, opinion, news or proposed plans.Charles (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now aware of what is required, my edits were an attempt to bring the article up to date. Would even have been happy to maintain the thing. I had no intentions of creating a village website on wikipedia but, as it stands, it is not accurate and is well out of date and already contains much of what you are complaining about. I would hope that if i attempt to update this again you would be a tad more helpful rather than simply removing text. I would really like to make this articel work better and, being a new contributer, would really like experienced editors to support me in this effort. thanks194.150.38.93 (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied from User talk:SovalValtos

Wondering why you are editing the "neighbourhood plan section" I added last week? The Group you are talking about isn't an official entity which isn't recognised as being a reviewer of the plan. Looks like this has been removed by the Local goverment officer and you've reversed it he removal as being an opinion when it could be argued that the group is actually a one person campaign DerekWailes (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I am minded to remove all this village plan stuff. Wikipedia is not a platform for local campaigning or news. This is WP:Recentism in my opinion. If anything comes out of the plans and is reliably sourced then it can be added.Charles (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended to be a campaign. the origional article had a reference to an outdated villige plan which is long dead. the neighbourhood plan is an official legal document (even in draft form). http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/inyourarea/neighbourhood/. So, yes, I agree its not suppossed to be a platform for campaigning or news, but would like the article to be factual. If, in your opinion, that means the plan section should go then so be it. My intention was to simply get the article up to date and perhaps I was being a bit hasty if this is considered WP:Recentism. It does look odd in retrospect. Should I remove it or you? - . DerekWailes (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to copy this to the Ashurst Wood talk page and will reply there. SovalValtos (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:DerekWailes for your input. User:Carolineleet had removed material supported by citations from the parish council, preferring her WP:OR and opinion. User:PamD and I replaced it. You are asserting 'it could be argued that the group is actually a one person campaign' without any support for that argument. I hope you will not take offence if I mention that some of your writing is somewhat opaque, due to spelling and grammar errors. You may not be aware of the 'Show preview' button to the right of the 'Save page' button, which allows you to review and correct what you have written before saving.

I take Charles's point. Perhaps we should give others a chance to comment for a while? Meanwhile there is plenty to be done to the article with clarification and adding citations.SovalValtos (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011162147/http://www.visionwebsites.co.uk/Contents/Text/Index.asp?SiteId=316&SiteExtra=10342578&TopNavId=677&NavSideId=5822 to http://www.visionwebsites.co.uk/Contents/Text/Index.asp?SiteId=316&SiteExtra=10342578&TopNavId=677&NavSideId=5822

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012013248/http://www.visionwebsites.co.uk/Uploads/Site316/Files/AWCGLeaflet.pdf to http://www.visionwebsites.co.uk/Uploads/Site316/Files/AWCGLeaflet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.isi.net/reports/2001/0141_01.htm
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.visionwebsites.co.uk/Uploads/Site316/Files/november07e-newsletter.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—