Talk:Nutley, East Sussex

Parish
The parish is not an ecclesiastical parish one but a civil one: quite separate organisations. All those mentioned are the former, but are included within the latter Peter Shearan (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pippingford Park exterior link
Pippingford Park is in Nutley and the website offers a wealth of visual information pertaining to Pippingford Park and therefore Nutley. Pippingford is still an Army training ground as well as being a haven for Deer and the lakes are Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Why this link keeps being deleted when the article mentions Pippingford, the link was added below the "Nutley Social Club" link, I can't fathom! --Smg1965 (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A commercial estate website is not a suitable link, even if it does have a bit of history attached. Find some local history books for reference instead. You are probably right about the social club link.--Charles (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally disagree with you, Pippingford has a commercial aspect but is intrinsically linked to Nutley, Ashdown Forest and it's history, please leave the links in and use the discussion till you get a clear consensus!--Smg1965 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The gentleman who keeps deleting the Pippingford link, and the Social Club’s, seems to be under the belief that Historical Houses, Manor’s and Garden’s etc are nowadays free from any commercial activity to keep them running and open to the public, I wish this was so. Pippingford does not charge for entry to the estate! Furthermore the gentleman’s inconsistency, removing Pippingford, and then the social club suggest he has sole ownership of the Nutley article and will only allow external links to sites which revolve around his own interests, i.e. the environmental, hence the Nutley Conservation Group links have been spared!

Please read the Wikipedia Five Pillars article!--Smg1965 (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The gentleman has read that and requests that the other gentleman reads External links. It's the League of Gentlemen again!--Charles (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This gentleman has read External links and does not see a problem with including a link to a site with rich visuals concerning an area with a Nutley address. I once again ask the other gentleman to respect the Wikipedia Five Pillars and stop deleting innocent links which do not fit around his interests. --Smg1965 (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pippingford link fails the guidelines on at least two counts, eg;
 * It is overly commercial.
 * It does not provide anything that would not be already covered by a good article.--Charles (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

--Smg1965 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Pippingford Park website provides a very good source of imagery of the local area
 * They do not charge for entry to the estate, I have been there during an Orienteering event free to the public with no parking fees.
 * Any Historic House, Gardens, Park etc. has to make it's way, this is not a link to the local Curry house, this is a link to a Historic part of Nutley and Ashdown Forest
 * Why doesn't Mr Charles write a good article on Pippingford Park as he is so opposed to a link which includes history about Pippingford.
 * Mr Charles seems to be back to his inconsistent authoritarian editing by leaving, and not deleting again, the link to the "Nutley Social Club" website, a commercial link! This suggests a vendetta on his part. I personally have no problems with any links other people think are relevant!


 * As a general comment, Pippingford Park is not, and never has been within the parish of Nutley - ecclesiastic or otherwise, so it was quite correct not to include Pippingford as being 'Nutley'.
 * As an aside, Flickr is full of pictures of a 'mud event' at Pippingford, which are labelled as 'Nutley' which is annoying when trying to find other Nutley pictures ...
 * I have been updating various historical items about Nutley since I hold all the archives of Nutley Historical Society which consists of photographs, scrapbooks, newspaper cuttings, scans of other historical documents such as conveyancing, wills, diaries and so on. J R Spigot (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocking editing?!?!?
Hi Jeff

Could you please explain who you are and why you are threatening to block me from editing.

Where is your contribution to the discussion apart from the threat! --Smg1965 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a Veteran Editor with over 27,000 edits under my belt, sometimes involved in Recent Changes Patrol using Huggle. At 17:37 (UTC) yesterday, during one of my patrols, I noticed this edit, in which you restored external links that Charlesdrakew felt were spam (as evidenced by that editor's Edit Summary for this edit).  I am trying, as was Charlesdrakew, to protect Wikipedia from inappropriate external links, as we have been explaining to you on your user talk page, so to that end, one minute later I reverted your restoration and issued you standard warning Template:uw-hugglespam3.    — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 04:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly Jeff the issue is whether I am a spammer or not as labelled by Charlesdrakew who from the moment I added the link deleted it without any discussion and labelled me a spammer. Viewing my history on Wikipedia it is clear that I am NOT a spammer but a relative Newbie.

Secondly the comments on my user talk page suggest I have not read the spamming guidelines. Just because Charlesdrakew and you think it is Spam does NOT make it so. It should be up for discussion as the guidelines are not black and white and I do not consider the link to be spamming because:


 * The site gives a history on the Manor House and the estate which is also relative to Nutley and Ashdown Forest, and also provides a good source of imagery of the area not contained on the Wiki
 * I have visited Pippingford Park during one of their events and at no time was solicited for an entry fee or charge for car parking but was free to roam un-hindered
 * The website provides no "point of sale", you can't purchase anything via the website
 * Any commercial activity Pippingford offers is of interest to a small majority of people in a specific market, as with any Historic Manor, Estate, Garden etc in Britain and the World they have to create an income to survive, this should not detract from it's historic and local importance. E.g. The Tower of London's Wiki page has an external link to Commercial website

Lastly I would be very happy to have this issue taken to the Wikipedia admins for a decision which I would respect. I would at the same time like them to look at the conduct of Charlesdrakew and yourself regarding the authoritarian attitude towards ordinary pedestrian users of Wikipedia.


 * Should Charlesdrakew be able to label myself and any other users as spammers
 * Should Charlesdrakew be able to delete additions without any discussion beforehand
 * Should Charlesdrakew be able to delete existing content without any discussion (the "Nutley Social Club" link added by another user) to justify my link deletion
 * Should Charlesdrakew be able to vacillate on HIS decisions as to which links should stay and be removed
 * Should Charlesdrakew be able "poke fun" at myself and other users
 * Should Charlesdrakew be able continuously undo changes without receiving any warnings as I myself did
 * Should you Jeff be able to threaten to ban my editing without discussion
 * Do you Jeff really think the link I have added and tried to justify politely is "Vandalism"?
 * If I was a spammer would I enter into so much discussion about this point and waste my time
 * Did you Jeff actually read the discussion on this before issuing your threat!

Once again I added the link to Pippingford Park in good faith as I was impressed by the area as far as free accessibility and its beauty and thought it would be beneficial to the Nutley page. It seems ordinary users are at the mercy of seasoned users who use their knowledge of Wikipedia to block any open access and discussion. I find this incredibly sad and abusive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smg1965 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked at all the edits made recently to this article and the discussion above. I have to conclude that I agree with Charlesdrakew and say that the two links in question are not suitable for this article. I would however also say that Smg1965 does seem to be acting in good faith and genuinely just disagrees with Charlesdrakew. The more viewpoints that can be gathered to gain full concensus would be beneficial.-- Paste Let’s have a chat. 21:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Paste and Charlesdrakew. The links seem to be basic violations of WP:EL as described above. From what I understand the only content which may be seen as beneficial to the article from the Pippingford website are the photos, and we can just go out and take high-res pictures ourselves and release them in the public domain. Smg1965 is definitely acting in good faith though - don't bite the newbies!. Una LagunaTalk 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that a link violates WP:EL. However, reading the Pippingford website I think its is worthy of a paragraph within the Nutley article - avoiding the commercial aspect - talking about the iron making history, and the SSSI lakes. I am surprised that it is not already mentioned. A while ago I went through the List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex and added these to the various parish articles - which one covers Pippingford lakes? I would go as far to say that the area is notable enough to warrant its own article. I would have created one now if it hadn't been for this bit of controversy. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is good to finally have some comments from experienced editors here. This brings us back to my initial comment in the previous section that Smg1965 should find some local history books at the library and write about Pippingford, as is normal practice, rather than introducing a spam link. If as much energy was expended on that instead of on browbeating experienced and veteran editors with long rants it could produce something useful. I would think a new section in the Ashdown Forest page would be appropriate.--Charles (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments; it’s good to see some real discussion at last from experienced editors!

Also thanks to Charlesdrakew for his last comment, you put a smile on my face! Maybe you should have read the other comments before writing it! Ultimately this is what this it is all about. A Newbie adds a link and an “experienced editor” deletes it, no real discussion apart from the “Spammer” label and an attempt to poke fun. Experienced editor? Sorry charles am I “ranting”? It seems to be the only thing not deleted yet! --Smg1965 (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)