Jump to content

Talk:Stoney Middleton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attractions POV

[edit]

Much as I personally agree with the sentiments, the section on damage to Jacobs Ladder by off-roaders presumably violates WP:NPOV. The section above on climbers isn't particularly "encyclopaedic" either (e.g. "It was not unknown for climbers to over-indulge at lunchtime and then set off to climb up the dale or as far away as Millstone Edge, resulting in trips to A&E."). Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

37.247.3.226/Strataman, I've copied the comments I posted at User talk:37.247.3.226, in case you haven't seen them, to explain why we seem to be becoming engaged in an edit war. Please read the relevant Wikipedia policies. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just thought it might be useful to explain why your changes to Stoney Middleton keep getting undone, by myself and others. It's nothing personal, and it's not that your opinions are considered invalid. Rather, Wikipedia has fundamental policies of neutral point of view and verifiability, whereby additions—particularly if they are controversial or a matter of opinion—must cite a credible source. Thus your opinions on the activities of off-roaders around Stoney Middleton (with which, incidentally, I entirely sympathise as a walker myself) are not admissible without a reference to a reliable source that backs up that opinion. Continuing to insert your own uncited opinion in a Wikipedia article is considered a breach of What Wikipedia is not. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and I take exception to your accusation that my actions in reverting your edits are because I have a "partisan view masquerading as non-partisan". Nothing could be further from the truth. I actually agree with you on the issue of damage caused by off-road vehicles, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox or campaigning tool. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stating your own credentials does not establish verifiability. You must cite reliable external sources. See also WP:PRIMARY. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added both sides of the argument in from the latest source that's been added, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strataman (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)I am not sure that this is as impartial as you say, it in effect represents the desires of the community who inhabit the village as being unreasonable when recourse to the source allows self evaluation by the reader. I see no reason nor by what mandate you have re-edited my entirely reasonable, in its final form, addition. As an adjunct to this, you seem to demonstrate your own ignorance about this matter. An objection was raised to DCC about the use of JL as a motorised carriageway by the village in 2003, its use as such was upheld by DCC, the village has maintained its opposition to such ever since. Why is it unreasonable in a wiki about the vilage that the view of the community as attested is not represented? Think, on balance, whose arguments do your edits and their representations favor?[reply]

Strataman, could you confirm that you've read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strataman, the cited source does not state that the residents of Stoney Middleton uniformly opposed the change in 2003. It states that an unidentified number of "residents" put forward petitions against it, and that a spokesman for this grouping condemned it. It is also against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to remove the information in the cited source that another group actively campaigned in favour of the change. Removing the date given in the cited source (this happened 10 years ago), or that the County Council made the decision to move ahead with the scheme(also in the source) is not helpful either. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strataman, I've added the "not in source cited" tag, as the webpage concerned doesn't support the sentence you've added it to. It doesn't mention the proposed construction dates, or the link to the pacification of the north, and doesn't argue its a motte and bailey castle. It is important when adding a citation to check that it supports the claims being made in the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strataman (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Hchcv2009 the cited source says residents oppose... that is the title of the article. The fact that the parish council challenged the BOAT would rather lead one to reasonably infer that "residents" continue to oppose...again, I would ask you to consider, in the version you posted, on balance, whose interests do your edits favour? As for Motte and Bailey castles, as a medieval expert, you well know about the construction dates of the temporary timber Motte and Baileys in the Peak Park, as in the ones at Hartington (pilsley hay if memory serves)and Bakewell. It is reasonable to infer, based on the morphology of the earthworks in Mrs Carteledges garden, that it could be an M&B. It is also cited in the archaeological resource assessment as a possible castle, the hillock itself is called castle hill. Me thinks you are nit picking but, be that as it may, I will source the resource assessment and page number...very best strataman[reply]

"It is reasonable to infer, based on the morphology of the earthworks in Mrs Carteledges garden, that it could be an M&B." Reasonable it may be, but that sounds rather like original research to me...again, this goes back to the fundamental Wikipedia requirement that any information added should be supported by cited references, and not go beyond what those references claim. Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the cited source comments on the "Stoney Middleton - Castle Hill ringwork", and notes that evidence "seems to suggest it may well be a small ringwork", it is definitely OR to suggest that it might be a Motte and Bailey instead. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Stoney Middleton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stoney_Middleton&oldid=1210056927"