Talk:Lilford Hall

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northamptonshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northamptonshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northamptonshire-related articles 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.NorthamptonshireWikipedia:WikiProject NorthamptonshireTemplate:WikiProject NorthamptonshireNorthamptonshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.lilfordhall.com/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2011051310008385.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 19 June 2020 by Woody.

Charles A Micklewright (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Special:Diff/963371289)
C A Micklewright (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (Special:Diff/963371289)

Lilford Park

Thanks for your contribution. I have suggested the two articles should be merged, since there are extensive areas of overlap. The Lilford Hall article is not particularly long, so there is no need to separate out the park at this stage, and given the repetition in terms of history etc they can easily be dealt with together. Also, the Lilford Park article appears to be largely cut-and-pasted from this website, which is against Wikipedia's copyright policy. By the way, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that there are 2 Lilford Parks, and traffic for Lilford Hall was going to wrong Lilford Park. Also Lilford Park was open to the public for many years, and thus locals usually think of Lilford Park rather than Lilford Hall. I suugest we keep 2 different sites.

Editing dispute

Recently there has been a flurry of reverting here. One party has put their concerns on his user talk page; User talk:Charles A Micklewright Nedrutland (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nedrutland for directing any 'talk' to my page. Charles Micklewright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles A Micklewright (talk • contribs) 14:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not 'direct' discussion to your user talk page. This Talk page is the appropriate place to discuss improvements.

That Lilford is on the 'At Risk' register is Reliably Sourced. If it had been removed from the register, there would be coverage of its removal on reliable sources, whether English Heritage or news reports. Nedrutland (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A further (2019) source; http://www.historicenglandservices.org.uk/images-books/publications/har-2019-registers/mid-har-register2019/ Nedrutland (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, sorry for using the wrong term 'direct', I was trying to be constructive. The problem about the At Risk register is that it is not updated with restoration work done in the meantime. In the over 10 years since the Hall was put on the At Risk register, I have spent a seven figure sum in the meantime on the Hall, which makes the wording of the original At Risk register very outdated . Let's agree a wording between us here on this 'talk' page. Charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by C A Micklewright (talk • contribs) 14:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains - it is on the Register (and at Cat. C). If you have a Reliable Source for the works that have been done, then that could be added. Nedrutland (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact indeed remains - it IS on the Register. Mr Micklewright seems to be deleting anything he doesn't like rather than sticking to facts. M_Steeples

@M Steeples: please focus on the content and the contributor. Woody (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains I linked to the 2019 information at: http://www.historicenglandservices.org.uk/images-books/publications/har-2019-registers/mid-har-register2019/ M_Steeples

This is further backed up in the newspaper the Oundle Chronicle: http://www.oundlechronicle.co.uk/?p=2436 — Preceding unsigned comment added by M Steeples (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nedrutland - I have no problem in mentioning the fact that the Hall is on the At Risk Register, however, the problem is that the work listed to be done over 10 years ago has now been partly done. I thus suggest the following amendment: The house was placed on Historic England's Heritage at Risk Register in 2008, at priority category: C - "slow decay; no solution agreed”, however, the owner has spent to date a seven-figure sum to restore the Grade I Hall, leaving work still to be done on the two Grade II pavilions at the rear of the Hall.^[1] Nedrutland, this is the actual situation, so what do you think? Charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by C A Micklewright (talk • contribs) 19 June 2020 (UTC)

References

^ "Heritage at Risk: Lilford Hall". Historicengland.org.uk. Retrieved 19 June 2020.

I would happily accept "The house remains on Historic England's Heritage at Risk Register, at priority category: C - "slow decay; no solution agreed" but some repairs have been carried out" which is as far as reliable sources support.

Please sign your additions to Talk with ~ x4. Nedrutland (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now edited to recognise the repairs that have been done. Nedrutland (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I have protected this article to prevent the edit warring that was ongoing rather than block you both for breaching the policy on no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period (3RR). Please discuss your issues on this talk page and if you cannot come to a consensus please look for Dispute Resolution. Woody (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Charles A Micklewright: @M Steeples: I have unprotected the page to allow editing. This does not mean you can continue the back and forth reverts that got the page protected in the first place. Engage in discussion on this talk page and gain a consensus for your edits. If any editor edit wars on this page or breaches the 3 revert rule then they will be blocked from editing. Woody (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Heritage at Risk: Lilford Hall". Historicengland.org.uk. Retrieved 19 June 2020.

[1]