Talk:Cunninghamhead Estate

Article contents
This article has been the subject of an intensive rewrite. Previously a number of subjective and inappropriate personal statements were made, despite having been previously removed. Any repetition will be referred to Wikipedia for advice and action. Rosser Gruffydd 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has been reverted following further suspected vandalism. This has been referred to wikipedia for further action. It is appropiate to state that legal action against the individual may take place due to the nature of the comments. Rosser Gruffydd 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article has been attacked again. Please log in and allow a discussion over your actions. Rosser Gruffydd 06:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Acts of vandalism are where you remove other users contribution to the knowledge base. Please don't remove other people's contributions. In effect you're censoring history and accuracy of the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.113.137 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Stables
The person repeatedly adding inappropriate comments must simply keep personal comments off this site. Wikipedia is not a 'chat' forum for venting personal feelings about 'The Stables'. Please keep comments factual and relevant. Rosser Gruffydd 07:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted an Administrator Rosser Gruffydd 08:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Article protected
I have protected this article because of WP:BLP violations. We cannot use someone's personal comments in the article. Anything in the article should be sourced or potentially sourced by verifiable and reliable sources according to WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. If no consensus as to content is reached here in the next week or two, and it appears that the BLP violations are going to continue, I'll take whatever action I see fit at that point. Note that our BLP policy also applies to talk pages, and any continued violation of that will lead to protection of the talk page. If the offender is using more than one IP address I can simply semi-protect the talk page to stop IPs. Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Much of the content of this article is through personal comment of Rosser and from him talking to people around Cunninghamhead. None of this research has any scientific basis and is subject to interpretation and conjecture. It is, as is most of Wikipedia, a very poor reference. No multi-sourcing and referencing has been done to verify the quality of contribution. It is far from academically sound.

Progress and compromise
The stables section is the main area of difficulty. I feel that my version is factually descriptive and makes no subjective comments. I used the older version of the article to inform my extensive update of the whole article. I will of course alter anything that is wrong. Please let me know and I will deal with it asap - depending on Dougweller's decision. Please appreciate that any comments that might put off a potential purchaser of The Stables could have legal implications. I look forward to hearing from you. Rosser Gruffydd 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Any purchaser would be able to view the condition of the stables and would have them surveyed too. It is being sold as a development opportunity:(remove cite, personal intrusion)

Additionally we we're stating that it's ideal to run a business from, as the current owners do.

Rosser has deleted all comments to this, and other corrections. This is against the ideas of a wiki where multiple authors contribute to the body of knowledge. Just because the few people that Rosser has spoken to have their own opinion as to the history of Cunninghamhead doesn't mean that's the correct one. Those who stay in Cunninghamhead may know more than you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.113.137 (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No Original Research.
If this were applied to this article much of the material would have to be deleted as there is no references.

I look forward to applying this rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.113.137 (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia
A fundamental problem here seems to be with what Wikipedia is for. What Wikipedia is not, is a newspaper. Discussing everyday events is more the territory of 's1kilmaurs' - a person would however also leave themselves wide open to legal action and the editors wouldn't accept strongly negative and unnecessary criticism. Rosser Gruffydd 17:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which has been praised "as a frequently updated news resource because of how quickly articles about recent events appear". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.195.55 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your quote is from WP:Recentism and needs to be taken into context with the rest of that essay (not a guideline, let alone policy). Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The quote is from the page referenced. Current uses of Cunninghamhead Estate doesn't mean that it's news. Simply that it's documenting rather than reporting any events. Wikipedia can respond quicker than traditional sources of reference, but when the rule of references sources is placed upon it then has to lag these referencies. Wikipedia then becomes an IP thief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.195.55 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Compromise and progress
Nothing deleted, only rewritten with necessary edits. Lets tackle 'The Stables' next. No personal references, just relevant facts. Also - Signing your posts on talk pages, both in the article and non-article namespaces, is a good practice, and facilitates discussion by helping identify the author of a particular comment. Other users can then navigate to a talk page and address their comments to the specific, relevant user(s). Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing, because it helps all users to understand the progress and evolution of a work. Rosser Gruffydd 20:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You've no evidence to say that those are saddle stones and nothing more than just there to help people on to their mounts. They were put there simply as decoration. Even the extra stones placed around the edge of the property are there to stop people going on the grass - even though not all of it part of the stables!

You can refer to the dovecote being above the arch way, and how it was removed by the current owners, but do you really need to cover the history of dovecotes in this article? Same with the standing stones erected at the front (what you call the saddle stones).

You have evidence that the stables are up for sale. You can help them by putting this in, and how there's a development opportunity for the potential buyer.

Also you will know that there's two businesses being run from the stables; again this only helps and is a documentable fact.

You can take a picture and show the condition of the building if you wish, if you can walk past it and see the condition then it's obvious to any observer and therefore not something that you can be liable for. You're only documenting the run down state of parts of the building.

Sadly the fact is that since the 1970s when a retired tank commander owned the stables it really hasn't had the same care taken of the gardens and buildings. As anyone who owns a similar building will tell you there is a lot of maintenance required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.211.215 (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Signing your posts on talk pages, both in the article and non-article namespaces, is a good practice, and facilitates discussion by helping identify the author of a particular comment. Other users can then navigate to a talk page and address their comments to the specific, relevant user(s). Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing, because it helps all users to understand the progress and evolution of a work.

What is a saddle stone? Never heard of such a thing. Standing stones are a megalithic feature. Mounting blocks???

As a passing thought I take it that you will encourage the owner of the stables to comment on the condition of your dwelling, business activies, hair style, dietary habits, car, garden, religious beliefs, etc.

Clearly I am joking. But you do surely see my point? Remember the 10 year rule - will something still be newsworthy after 10 years.

Try writing your own article on a local history topic. This would give you an insight into the process.

We will need to leave the decisions up to the administrators it seems. Rosser Gruffydd 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Rosser, your childish taunts are rather lost on me, sorry. Please, let's just try to improve this article as previously suggested.

Ten year rule? Stables have been used as a used car lot for over ten years if not twenty. Same with being a horse transport buiness.

I'd imagine that you do find it difficult to write about subjects you're clearly not the expert in. It's commendable that you've making the effort, but please don't delete other contributor's efforts. You may learn from them facts that you are not aware of, or have been previously mislead on. Remember also that when you say that the stables have "staddle stones" it's not required to cover their history in this article, nor do you have any evidence to suggest that the Cunninghamhead ones are original (they're not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.114.208 (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate Personal Reference
And you were doing so well! Rosser Gruffydd 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)