Talk:Lilford Hall

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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spent a seven figure sum in the meantime on the Hall, which makes the wording of the original At Risk register very outdated.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)


 * 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)


 * 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
 * please focus on the content and the contributor. Woody (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)

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. 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)


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

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)
 * Note  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)