Talk:Speckled Wood, Hastings

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Speckled Wood, Hastings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 26 November 2012 by reviewer Ritchie333 (talk · contribs).

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Species list

User:Anna Frodesiak/Green sandbox

I'm slowly fixing it up. Please feel free to improve that page until it's ready to add to this article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Which type do we use?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links in the body of the article

Such links are usually acceptable for a short time during the article's infancy. Now, I think it is time to remove them and add whichever are appropriate to the external links section at the bottom. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In replying, please consider the importance of neutrality, as it appears that certain editors working on this article have a conflict of interest. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of the external links in the body of the article are appropriate for the external links section (as according to Wikipedia:External links. External links do not include every organization that has some interest in the park (or whatever you want to call it). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reference does not show it classified as a Nature Reserve, it it says it has potential to classify it as a nature reserve.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Classified as a LNF' is not the same as 'is an LNF'. Classified means that people or specialists have classed it as a LNF. To be an LNF it would either be classified by the LA or it would be Designated. 'Classified', 'Designated' and 'is' are all totally differant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.62.199 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of maps

Where did this image come from? I have nominated this for deletion as a blatant copyright infringement, as noted by the Crown Copyright notice on the bottom, so I suspect the "own work" on the geology map may be a stretch as well. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have already explained I uploaded the wrong file.FOSWMT 23:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed reference

Note I have removed the reference referring to the the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919‎, as the reference was a link to the act, not commenting on how the act affected the park. I replaced it with what was a red wikilink, but have since created the article on the act. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

list of external references for article

FOSWMT Managment plan 2012 http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/addendum%20oct-nov%202012/Appendix%206%20-%20Hastings%20Borough%20Council%20%20-%20WoodlandSurveyReport%201983-4.pdf

Hastings Borough Council Woodland Management Report http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/addendum%20oct-nov%202012/Appendix%206%20-%20Hastings%20Borough%20Council%20%20-%20WoodlandSurveyReport%201983-4.pdf

Friends Of Speckled Wood - Knot Weed Survey 2012 Available from Hastings Borough Council or from the Friends of Speckled Wood Website http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/management plan 2012/2012-10-04 - Japanese knot Survey Oct 2012 finished.pdf

Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre part of the Sussex Wildlife Trust - Desktop Biodiversity Report for Speckled Wood ESD/12/475 for Speckled Wood. Available from Hastings Borough Council http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/management plan 2012/Sussex Biodiversitry Record Centre - SxBRCReport_SpeckledWood.pdf

National Trust - Natural Childhood by Stephen Moss. Available from Hastings Borough Council http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/management plan 2012/Natural Trust - Childhood Brochure.pdf

The Friends of Speckled Wood Management Plan Addendum Oct-Nov 2012 report to Cabinet. Available from Hastings Borough Council or from the Friends of Speckled Wood Website http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/addendum oct-nov 2012/2012-10-19 - Friends of Speckled Wood Management plan - Addendum Oct-Nov Final.pdf

Appendix 1: 2012-10-17 - Letter from Dr Patrick Roper a note on the wildlife in speckled wood. Available from Hastings Borough Council or from the Friends of Speckled Wood Website http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/addendum oct-nov 2012/Appendix 1 - 2012-10-17 - Dr Patrick Roper - A note of the wildlife of Speckled Wood.pdf

Appendix 2: 2012-10-17-Dr Patrick Roper - ecology status. Available from Hastings Borough Council or from the Friends of Speckled Wood Website http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/addendum oct-nov 2012/Appendix 2 - 2012-10-17-Dr Patrick Roper - ecology status.pdf

Appendix 3: 2012-10 -18 Dr Richard Price - Introduction Letter Available from Hastings Borough Council or from the Friends of Speckled Wood Website http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/addendum oct-nov 2012/Appendix 3 - 2012-10 -18 Dr Richard Price - Introduction Letter.pdf

Appendix 5: 2012-10-19 - Mr Jeremy Linden Site development. Available from Hastings Borough Council or from the Friends of Speckled Wood Website http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/addendum oct-nov 2012/Appendix 5 - 2012-10-19 - Mr Jeremy Linden Site development.pdf

Appendix 6: Hastings Borough Council - WoodlandSurveyReport 1983-4. Available from Hastings Borough Council or from the Friends of Speckled Wood Website http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/documents/addendum oct-nov 2012/Appendix 6 - Hastings Borough Council - WoodlandSurveyReport 1983-4.pdf

JSTOR:Albion Vol. 30, No. 3, Autumn, 1998 - From Soldier to Peasant? The Land Settlement Scheme in East Sussex 1919 - 1936 by Carol Lockwood http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4053288?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101405809561

M Beswick. Brick Making in Sussex. Middleton Press. ISBN 1873 793 197. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

I'm afraid this looks more like a list of spam links to your own website. Wikipedia requires reliable third party references.Theroadislong (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request on above list of sources

The above references are from a website connected to the park. Not entirely arms-length, but they don't represent the park either. Plus, they contain studies from others even further removed from the park. So, I don't know whether or not we can consider them reliable sources. Please give some feedback so we can figure out if they can be used to support facts within the article. You will see species lists there, which could support the (now-removed) species section. I am particularly interested in that. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The links are all dead so it's hard to give an opinion. I'd be happy to see the list of species back up again, but still concerned that some editors are trying to use the article to further a cause rather than create a neutral Wikipedia articleTheroadislong (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. FOSWMT has apparently removed the urls. Now, I wonder if this article should be nominated for deletion. Are there enough remaining references to support it? FYI: I've asked another user to dig up sources: User talk:Ore CLT#Speckled Wood.2C Hastings 2 Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He removed the URLs after a discussion last night on IRC where three different users (myself included) tried to explain things to him and he outright refused to listen. He removed them specifically because he controlled access to those references and was jaded because of his username block. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no reason for deletion at the moment, it's looking better than the Stanmer Park article for instance, which has no references at all. As long as it's "hidden agenda" doesn't come back it looks fine to me.Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice to hear. Perhaps Ore CLT has access to the same sources that are now 404 at friendsofspeckedwood.org Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this whole debate a lot of fuss about a simple article. I refute the statements that FOSWMT would not listen I have a printout of the IRC chat that I have sent to head office as nothing was said to me that I could edit without having to be signed in. I am going to tell Ore CLT that they never need to sign in either. This makes the whole situation even more ridiculous. I will return the links to live and allow you access to my library online when you start acting more sensible and less like children. I suggest if you want our help you start to meet us half way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.58.146 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking in pretty good shape as it stands, I don't think it really needs any of your links/references, it does require more reliable third party references though. You refer to "our help" Wikipedia is VERY strictly for editing by individual people NOT groups like your organisation pushing an agenda (however noble). Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short comment to FOSWMT/anon user: By these edits an your interaction on IRC you have clearly showed that you do not understand how Wikipedia works at all. I'd advise you to spend a few minutes reading Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and meta:Power_structure. These links will give you a lot of information that amongst others describe why we don't require a user to register in order to edit, what kind of references we require/accept as well as a basic understanding of our core policies and guidelines. Bjelleklang - talk 18:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you what you know about the site what qualifies you to say that and where do you live are you uk based near the site. As I would say your statement view is not shared. I think you will have a problem in future finding any articles that are not associated with that company. As that company is the only one producing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.215.87 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thus continues the saga of FOSWMT, who still has peanut butter in his ears and won't do the basic research as to how Wikipedia works. This is not your article for you to do with as you please and set up as a walled garden, and it's quite clear at this point you're either willfully blind or so conflicted that you cannot think rationally on the issue. I think it would be best for everyone if you stopped it with your siege mentality, actually take the time to read Wikipedia's policies (especially those regarding conflict-of-interest and (implied) shared accounts) and just, overall, take a vacation from Wikipedia altogether for about a week or so. There's no need to rush and get your blood pressure spiking just because you've made mistakes; all you need to do is own up to them and strive to correct them. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is FOSMT ? Who are you ? Sounds like you have an issue. Maybe you should take a break go vent somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.62.199 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why, you are, and we don't like it when people lie about it because of the number of ways there are to abuse multiple accounts (or just an account and an IP, like you're doing here). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

How can these coordinates be right? Google maps shows surrounding farmland, not houses, like in the map: http://www.friendsofspeckledwood.org.uk/Oct2012consultation/

Plus, Google maps says West Sussex, and all the roads are in the wrong place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it: http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=50.871872,0.605342&hl=en&ll=50.871953,0.609677&spn=0.007366,0.016565&num=1&t=h&z=16

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the ones in the title have been changed from where they originally were. The original ones were out by about 100 metres maybe...will look into it.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates were correct, however the East-West parameter was set to west instead of east, usually this sort of thing is easy to pick up (because when you look at it, the point comes up in a different continent). Easily missed here as the park is so close to the prime meridian. I have also rounded the coordinates to the nearest second, ±20 metres (66 ft) should be precise enough for something this size, and it still brings you into the park. No need to show thousandths of seconds in the coordinates, it's not like we are launching missiles. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates where not correct on the article till this morning when this was sent

The Wikipedia page "Speckled Wood, Hastings" has been created on 30 November 2012 by Rushbugled13, with the edit summary: -

This is a new page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckled_Wood,_Hastings for the current revision.

changed the article before this they pointed to the A29 and not the Grid Reference: TQ834112 given by the original author. Please get your facts correct this was mentioned at a meeting I attended last night and is in their minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.62.199 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I said the coordinates were correct I meant the numbers were correct, they were just being given west of the prime meridian, rather than east. When I originally added them they were correct, however the west of 0 was added to the infobox, so I removed the original set I added because they overlaid each other, I subsequently fixed the ones in the infobox. I wait with baited breath to read the minutes of the meeting. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break , go and have a word with your self quietly

CUP OF TEA IMAGE

Sit down do not think about editing anything you know nothing about .

Do not assume you have a monopoly on information, FOSWMT, and don't make suggestions you yourself refuse to follow. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]