This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've noticed that this page is becoming the location for an edit war by a certain user related to the controversy content. Please try and keep content referenced and in line with the policies of wikipedia. I don't want to read a tit-for-tat argument about who is right; please take your problems elsewhere.
-- A scanner lightly ( talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so it seems that the edit war has continued. Please look at the guidelines for working with Wikipedia before doing any more silly edits; logging out doesn't mean that you aren't noticed ;-)
-- A scanner lightly ( talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the wholesale removal of the controversy section as a large amount of well sourced material was deleted without discussion (or even an edit summary). Per WP:BRD, please discuss proposed changes here prior to cutting out large swathes of cited material. -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 02:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree with Ponyo; I've grown quite sick of having to revert edits on this page. It is a shame that people have to behave like spoiled brats :P -- A scanner lightly ( talk) 10:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In general, one should not remove well-sourced material from an article without discussion. The section in question here is quite well-sourced, and as such should probably remain in the article in some form.
However, there is a serious question of balance, given that the Controversy section is more than half of the article. There shouldn't be a controversy section in an article that is a stub. If the article subject is notable specifically because of the controversy, the controversy information should be incorporated into the lede. It doesn't sound to me like that is the case here, although I'm not familiar with the subject matter so I could be wrong.
A better solution would be to add more information to the article, so that the Controversy section can remain without issues of undue weight. Many small towns have non-stub articles...would it be possible to expand this article significantly? Maybe add some demographic information, expand the history, and add information about notable residents, institutions, or companies if any? MirrorLockup ( talk) 15:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Fisher Queen no need to be so unfriendly .....still learning;-)) thx (pippie 21:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs) Special thanks to scanner lightly for the perfect description of the occupied land!(pippie 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
Solid evidence regarding the current status of the tenancy will be provided very soon and it would be well appreciated if we still could expand the Sheldon article as up to now the controvesry part and specialy the reference part is in my opinion still well out of proportion ....(pippie 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
A scanner lightly this is not a Twitter page so if you would like to have any information not relevant for this page please feel free to email me.It seems we dont have the same sources to obtain information from about proceedings going on in our village. Furthermore "official website of the Sheldon Parish meeting" i propose to take it of for the moment as it doesnt seem to work properly and needs to have a necessary update. As i dont want to offend anybody here i ask a third opion to take this link off until it has undergone an update .At the moment it is strangly enough only refering to the subject of the controversy section and that doesnt seem to be the essence of the general website of the Sheldon Parish meeting.Please i ask a third opion about the mentioned website and advice to take it off the page.(pippie 17:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
Good to hear you agree that site has problems so i feel free as you say to take it off as a not functioning reference is rather useless refering to. As you stated before you are the chairman of the parish meeting i would say its more your responsibility than that of a random inhabitant of Sheldon to fix the site . I am looking forward seeing the site back on in a "repaired"version. Thanks. (pippie 19:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
A not functioning website should not be used as a reference. I realy dont see why you cant agree with that and why you react as it is something to you personal which is definitaly not the case, i just find it highly suspiocious that on the discussed website just the article about"home Farm"is visible. All i ask to put a functioning website as a reference. thank you. (pippie 20:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
Took notice of the fixed website, thank you for contacting so fast the webmaster(;-).......the sheldon parish meeting has nothing else to mention than issues concerning Home Farm?? Should not be on here in its current format.(pippie 21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
Exactly let common sense decide if all this information which is simply more of the same should be on here(pippie 21:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
I have taken the liberty of removing this section. Wikipedia is not the news, and I can't see anything that makes me think that this particular local land squabble is of any lasting significance to explaining the history or importance of this place. I request that anyone who wishes to add information regarding this particular issue make sure that you can source its importance by citing significant coverage of the squabble in newspapers other than the local paper. Does anyone outside of Sheldon give a fig about this? An encyclopedia article is a place to explain what Sheldon is- not a place to fight out non-notable local disputes. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Summery: i've not change online identity & grievances are justified but real life discussions would be better than a Controversy Section.
A Scanner Lightly? - I'm not the same person as whoever it is you've suggested. I'm just me, Max Kohanzad. But you'll just have to take my word for that. The controversy section actually helped the google ranking from our B&B website, as does the Parish Meeting website - as they link to Matlock Advertiser which links to our site.
I'm glad i'm not the only one a little surprised by the obsession with Home Farm. That having been said, i'd welcome a more balanced and objective Controversy section that i wasn't banned from contributing to.
I'd just like to end with this; i know that my uncle is actually crazy and a dirty crook and that my dad speaks in a foreign accent, is somewhat crazy & confrontational and doesn't think before he does anything at Home Farm, BUT... I am not them, and i wish you'd stop treating me, both, here in wiki & elsewhere with the same contempt as you might justifiably feel for my uncle and my dad.
I'm sorry what "current behaviour", i've literally just added this little section last night, and have not been on wiki for months, because i really don't like it (i'm significantly dyslexic and find the entire text based page most annoying), please reference what behaviour you are falsely accusing me of? Please also highlight and reference what issues I have that you don't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxKohanzad ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Rather than a Controversy Section let's have real, open, discussions in the village? I'm happy to talk to you all in the real world face to face, one to one, and you'll judge who i am for yourselves. my email address is redacted- please do get in touch so that we can arrange a time to talk calmly and sanely about your real concerns, (please do not bring your pitchforks), many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxKohanzad ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Fisher Queen, thanks for your constructive input and changes. Sorry if i did upset you, strating to understand how it all works here. Thanks for your patience.(pippie 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
A scanner lightly? please let me know with whom I have 'grievances' and what they are exactly? ie. cite them here on wiki, because apart from my natural aversion to the frankly aggressive tone and tactics adopted by yourself and the other John, to someone you don't actually know or had any meaningful real life conversion with, the village have been genuinely warm friendly and welcoming.
Oh in response to your suggestion, I'd like to talk out the grievances i have with You, in person, when might be a good time for me to knock on?
Let's have a "Home Farm Sheldon" Open Forum - somewhere else, because wikipedia is not the place for it, so that people can publish whatever they want and we can have a real discussion? what do you all think/feel?
Anyone can see that MaxKohanzad and Pippie Langkous are not the same person, the syntax formation is very different, the entire way of structuring arguments, the language, the logics uses etc... unless i have a very serious personality disorder? I'd also guess that Pippie... is a woman. Has anyone checked Pippie's IP Address? is it in anyway related to mine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxKohanzad ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC) MaxKohanzad ( talk) 19:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I've set up an open forum - here -> http://homefarmsheldon.myfreeforum.org/forum1.php i'm happy to have everyone be a admin and let's see what happens. MaxKohanzad ( talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Good idea....and yes, for anybody who had doubts.... MaxKohanzad is right....i am a woman;-)) (pippie 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
Hmmmmm got the impression that Skanner lightly is not amused that the controversy section has been taken off and is acting a bit childish. This page we all try to improve and update with neutral , valid information about Sheldon!The fact that after deleting the controversy section skanner lightly suddenly has a life to get on with says it all. People afraid of confontation are in my opinion weak and insecure people, just consider that thought, skanner lightly, and....dont worry...i am not afraid of confrontation so in the near future you will hear from me at the Parish meeting (pippie 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
You`re completly right...life is too short and issues are there to be dealt with. See you soon (pippie 21:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
A Proposal: As we are never going to agree with the content of this page I propose the following: 1. The WP article stays free of planning issues 2. The village twitter feed stays free of planning issues (now deleted) 3. You take any grievances you have with the village/planning to the chair/meeting for civil discussion. 4. I'm afraid that the village website is out of my hands; feel free to bring the contents up with the chair or webmaster. I think that is fair all around, and that way you aren't feeling misrepresented by the contents of any web source. -- A scanner lightly ( talk) 07:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've noticed that this page is becoming the location for an edit war by a certain user related to the controversy content. Please try and keep content referenced and in line with the policies of wikipedia. I don't want to read a tit-for-tat argument about who is right; please take your problems elsewhere.
-- A scanner lightly ( talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so it seems that the edit war has continued. Please look at the guidelines for working with Wikipedia before doing any more silly edits; logging out doesn't mean that you aren't noticed ;-)
-- A scanner lightly ( talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the wholesale removal of the controversy section as a large amount of well sourced material was deleted without discussion (or even an edit summary). Per WP:BRD, please discuss proposed changes here prior to cutting out large swathes of cited material. -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 02:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree with Ponyo; I've grown quite sick of having to revert edits on this page. It is a shame that people have to behave like spoiled brats :P -- A scanner lightly ( talk) 10:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In general, one should not remove well-sourced material from an article without discussion. The section in question here is quite well-sourced, and as such should probably remain in the article in some form.
However, there is a serious question of balance, given that the Controversy section is more than half of the article. There shouldn't be a controversy section in an article that is a stub. If the article subject is notable specifically because of the controversy, the controversy information should be incorporated into the lede. It doesn't sound to me like that is the case here, although I'm not familiar with the subject matter so I could be wrong.
A better solution would be to add more information to the article, so that the Controversy section can remain without issues of undue weight. Many small towns have non-stub articles...would it be possible to expand this article significantly? Maybe add some demographic information, expand the history, and add information about notable residents, institutions, or companies if any? MirrorLockup ( talk) 15:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Fisher Queen no need to be so unfriendly .....still learning;-)) thx (pippie 21:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs) Special thanks to scanner lightly for the perfect description of the occupied land!(pippie 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
Solid evidence regarding the current status of the tenancy will be provided very soon and it would be well appreciated if we still could expand the Sheldon article as up to now the controvesry part and specialy the reference part is in my opinion still well out of proportion ....(pippie 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
A scanner lightly this is not a Twitter page so if you would like to have any information not relevant for this page please feel free to email me.It seems we dont have the same sources to obtain information from about proceedings going on in our village. Furthermore "official website of the Sheldon Parish meeting" i propose to take it of for the moment as it doesnt seem to work properly and needs to have a necessary update. As i dont want to offend anybody here i ask a third opion to take this link off until it has undergone an update .At the moment it is strangly enough only refering to the subject of the controversy section and that doesnt seem to be the essence of the general website of the Sheldon Parish meeting.Please i ask a third opion about the mentioned website and advice to take it off the page.(pippie 17:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
Good to hear you agree that site has problems so i feel free as you say to take it off as a not functioning reference is rather useless refering to. As you stated before you are the chairman of the parish meeting i would say its more your responsibility than that of a random inhabitant of Sheldon to fix the site . I am looking forward seeing the site back on in a "repaired"version. Thanks. (pippie 19:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
A not functioning website should not be used as a reference. I realy dont see why you cant agree with that and why you react as it is something to you personal which is definitaly not the case, i just find it highly suspiocious that on the discussed website just the article about"home Farm"is visible. All i ask to put a functioning website as a reference. thank you. (pippie 20:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
Took notice of the fixed website, thank you for contacting so fast the webmaster(;-).......the sheldon parish meeting has nothing else to mention than issues concerning Home Farm?? Should not be on here in its current format.(pippie 21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
Exactly let common sense decide if all this information which is simply more of the same should be on here(pippie 21:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
I have taken the liberty of removing this section. Wikipedia is not the news, and I can't see anything that makes me think that this particular local land squabble is of any lasting significance to explaining the history or importance of this place. I request that anyone who wishes to add information regarding this particular issue make sure that you can source its importance by citing significant coverage of the squabble in newspapers other than the local paper. Does anyone outside of Sheldon give a fig about this? An encyclopedia article is a place to explain what Sheldon is- not a place to fight out non-notable local disputes. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Summery: i've not change online identity & grievances are justified but real life discussions would be better than a Controversy Section.
A Scanner Lightly? - I'm not the same person as whoever it is you've suggested. I'm just me, Max Kohanzad. But you'll just have to take my word for that. The controversy section actually helped the google ranking from our B&B website, as does the Parish Meeting website - as they link to Matlock Advertiser which links to our site.
I'm glad i'm not the only one a little surprised by the obsession with Home Farm. That having been said, i'd welcome a more balanced and objective Controversy section that i wasn't banned from contributing to.
I'd just like to end with this; i know that my uncle is actually crazy and a dirty crook and that my dad speaks in a foreign accent, is somewhat crazy & confrontational and doesn't think before he does anything at Home Farm, BUT... I am not them, and i wish you'd stop treating me, both, here in wiki & elsewhere with the same contempt as you might justifiably feel for my uncle and my dad.
I'm sorry what "current behaviour", i've literally just added this little section last night, and have not been on wiki for months, because i really don't like it (i'm significantly dyslexic and find the entire text based page most annoying), please reference what behaviour you are falsely accusing me of? Please also highlight and reference what issues I have that you don't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxKohanzad ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Rather than a Controversy Section let's have real, open, discussions in the village? I'm happy to talk to you all in the real world face to face, one to one, and you'll judge who i am for yourselves. my email address is redacted- please do get in touch so that we can arrange a time to talk calmly and sanely about your real concerns, (please do not bring your pitchforks), many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxKohanzad ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Fisher Queen, thanks for your constructive input and changes. Sorry if i did upset you, strating to understand how it all works here. Thanks for your patience.(pippie 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
A scanner lightly? please let me know with whom I have 'grievances' and what they are exactly? ie. cite them here on wiki, because apart from my natural aversion to the frankly aggressive tone and tactics adopted by yourself and the other John, to someone you don't actually know or had any meaningful real life conversion with, the village have been genuinely warm friendly and welcoming.
Oh in response to your suggestion, I'd like to talk out the grievances i have with You, in person, when might be a good time for me to knock on?
Let's have a "Home Farm Sheldon" Open Forum - somewhere else, because wikipedia is not the place for it, so that people can publish whatever they want and we can have a real discussion? what do you all think/feel?
Anyone can see that MaxKohanzad and Pippie Langkous are not the same person, the syntax formation is very different, the entire way of structuring arguments, the language, the logics uses etc... unless i have a very serious personality disorder? I'd also guess that Pippie... is a woman. Has anyone checked Pippie's IP Address? is it in anyway related to mine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxKohanzad ( talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC) MaxKohanzad ( talk) 19:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I've set up an open forum - here -> http://homefarmsheldon.myfreeforum.org/forum1.php i'm happy to have everyone be a admin and let's see what happens. MaxKohanzad ( talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Good idea....and yes, for anybody who had doubts.... MaxKohanzad is right....i am a woman;-)) (pippie 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
Hmmmmm got the impression that Skanner lightly is not amused that the controversy section has been taken off and is acting a bit childish. This page we all try to improve and update with neutral , valid information about Sheldon!The fact that after deleting the controversy section skanner lightly suddenly has a life to get on with says it all. People afraid of confontation are in my opinion weak and insecure people, just consider that thought, skanner lightly, and....dont worry...i am not afraid of confrontation so in the near future you will hear from me at the Parish meeting (pippie 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
You`re completly right...life is too short and issues are there to be dealt with. See you soon (pippie 21:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous ( talk • contribs)
A Proposal: As we are never going to agree with the content of this page I propose the following: 1. The WP article stays free of planning issues 2. The village twitter feed stays free of planning issues (now deleted) 3. You take any grievances you have with the village/planning to the chair/meeting for civil discussion. 4. I'm afraid that the village website is out of my hands; feel free to bring the contents up with the chair or webmaster. I think that is fair all around, and that way you aren't feeling misrepresented by the contents of any web source. -- A scanner lightly ( talk) 07:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |