Talk:Shaftesbury/Archive 1

Vandalism
Recently there have been many attempts to remove links relating to Shaftesbury's web site ShaftesburyTown.co.uk this website is completely non-commercial and non-profit and free to all members of the town. It also is the only full online copy of the towns tourism guides, where to stay and where to eat, the chamber of commerces directory and the minutes and agendas of the council.

Please would commercial sites refrain from 'raping' wikipeida with spam links and if that is not enough then going on to damage long standing legitimate links calling them 'expired' or spam them selfs when they are clearly not.

Thanks --Shaftesbury 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This user has been spamming Dorset related articles for over a year with off-topic links to Shaftesburytown.co.uk. I will request the sites addition to the spam filter if it doesn't stop.  Joe D (t) 17:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Steinsky is being very pathetic, the dorset page has nothing to do with me (check history of that page!) and shaftesburytown.co.uk is and remains the only non-commerial website dedicated to shaftesbury and its area, as a responisble citizen of this town I will continue to support the work done by shaftesburytown.co.uk since the other 2 sites are either commericaly owned and wasting tax payers money that was given out with out due process or owned by a company that is still under investegation for not completing a contract(if there ever was one) to do a town website for the council.

This site will continue to be linked from wikipedia since its the only one that fully complys with the rules. The user steinsky has been reported to moderators for his actions. --Shaftesbury 17:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * After taking a look at this website I can clearly see it deserves linking, and reading the arb request that was filed I can see no justifcation for its removal since they found no wrong doing by user Shaftesbury. I do wish people would go throug the proper channels instead of just deleting information off their own back. --Curuxz 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "arb" request wasn't filed correctly and was closed due to lack of interest. I can go into quite some detail about the policies broken in the pushing of this site if you like.  Joe D (t) 19:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then go through proper channels and come back and change this page but stirring up trouble for your own personal reasons is odd. The link will be restored to the page every time it is removed since I am yet another person from Shaftesbury that supports the work this great site does as the most relevant resource, I was shocked that when I joined wikipeida it was not there but even more shocked that it WAS there but had been removed by someone who is not even FROM our town (referenced from your own page) and that a complaint about you had already been filed through the proper channels and the link was allowed to remain. I have emailed the admins of Shaftesburytown about whats going on here I hope they will come and also explain to you how wikipedia works and how to conduct fair edits without just annoying people. I am not going to discuss this issue with you further since the next time you try and screw around with our towns page for no good reason I'll be the one filling the complaint. --81.155.189.244 06:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware of how the policies work, thanks, and if you were too, you'd know that the complaint got nowhere. I imagine the admins are aware of the Wikipedia issue, as I don't know who else it would be going around adding it to so many inappropriate pages, the reason it made it to my spam list in the first place.  It is not the content of the site that makes this spam, but the behaviour of the person/people pushing it on Wikipedia.  Joe D (t) 08:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Association of Members' Advocates
Your case has been opened here, Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/Shaftesbury. Please see it for more details.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing: "In popular culture" section
I really fail to see how this adds to the page, I am tempted to expand this article further since at the moment it is the subject of frequent vandalism by people against the town's website being linked on the page (despite a wikipedia ruling that did not say it should go and it being within the rules). But while they vandalised the page and removed the link they also deleted this section on popular culture, which I sadly have to agree with.

To many other figures have refrenced the town, it seems strange to have one bit of one comics work on there. I'll propose a better larger page soon once I have obtained the correct copyright from the town website to use images and text to expand this page. --Curuxz 09:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your charactorisation of the spam issue, and the "wikipedia ruling" is at best disingenuous, as has been discussed often enough before. Joe D (t) 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you continue to engage in an edit war (not the first time by far judging from your discussion page) I have filed a moderation request to force you to stop damaging our town page. --Curuxz 11:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OWN to understand what's wrong with the above comment - A l is o n  ☺ 20:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Article unprotected
I have reviewed the situation above and the article has now been unprotected. Please, however, read WP:SPAM and WP:3RR before editing further on the main article. I'll be monitoring the situation from here. Also, Curuxz, please moderate your language, assume better faith on the part of your fellow-editors. Personal attacks of the sort you have made will get you blocked. Discuss matters here and obtain consensus before re-adding any links. Unprotecting at this time does not give you carte blanche to re-add it - A l is o n  ☺ 20:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for unblocking the site, however I did not intend to make personal attacks I was simply responding to claims of spamming, which I still maintain I was not and abuse of power of a certain user editing a page for his favor then locking it while mediation was on going.

The link I was trying to post is the most relevant to the page and the only NONCOMMERCIAL such link proposed if people could have valid reasons for it not to go on I would like to hear them, I fail to see why certain people are against this towns website so much.

Regards --Curuxz 21:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alison you say that removing the protection was not enforcement of the link however you kept the version unfairly edited by Starski without the link. If you look at the history he changed the page THEN protected it in order have his own way, as John points out on the arb page. As for being controversial, well again its one user who is overusing their edit power for an unknown reason. The link is highly relevant, how long do I have to wait to put it back when there is no genuine reason against me putting it on this page?

Regards --Curuxz 08:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Town Website www.shaftesburydorset.com
The website www.shaftesburydorset.com has been added as an external link with the approval of wiki editors. The number of links available to readers offers choice and the removal of any link is arbitrary censorship. The website is owned by the town through the Shaftesbury District Taskforce and is maintained by volunteers in the Chamber of Commerce (Business); Tourist Information Centre (Tourism); Town Hall (Local Government) and Shaftesbury Task Force (Youth). It is the most popular reference site on search engines and contains more up-to-date information than any other Shaftesbury-related website. Yet, although this website has been approved by wikipedia editors for inclusion, it has been removed twice. Please leave this link intact for the benefit of those interested in visiting our beautiful town. Many thanks Sgts (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Before changing a page under which there has been so much previous discussion would you be kind enough to reference where any editors ruled this link valid for inclusion. There were numerous editors that ruled AGAINST it being included as per wiki rules preferencing free/community sites (like Shaftesburytown.co.uk) over commercial ones. The website you mention is owned by a private limited company the shaftesbury taskforce. The other information you have mentioned is available on both sites. The link may indeed need to go back on, but placing it at the top over the ones that have been there a long time is very bad etiquette and referring to editors unanimous views when none such exist is also questionable. In good faith please read the previous discussion and related pages, then state your arguments here before risking causing further edit wars (like happened last year in which editors ruled in clear favor of shaftesburytown).--Curuxz (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

After further discussion with editors on winkpedia-en-help the link is being added again. It IS in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL which states: "What should be linked - 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." (this is owned for the Council by the Shaftesbury Taskforce, a non-profit company limited by guarantee set up in accordance with Governemnt recommendations). and "3.Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail" (this site has enormous detail, maintained up-to-date by volunteers across all sectors of the community). It also meets advertising and conflict of interest policy: "If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines." Sgts (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You still are failing to add links to relevant discussion, quoting generalized rules is not the way forward. You are causing an edit war by continually re-adding your link without proper discussion i once again IMPLORE YOU TO NOT ADD YOU LINK WITHOUT DISCUSSION. Talk it out here, see what others think then proceed.
 * The link was removed previously after lengthy discussion with editors about the fact that this town has 3 websites, www.shaftesburytown.co.uk, wwww.shaftesburydorset.com and www.shaftesburyindorset.com. It was decided that under wiki rules when 3 relevant sites exist the least commercial or the only non commercial one prevails since it has no commercial value to the link, ie that page gaining wiki traffic will not increase its sales that thus cause wikipedia to be used as a marketing tool. Shaftesburydorset.com very clear SELLS advertising pace, as does shaftesburyindorset.com that was the main reason that it was desided only ONE link was enough and that link should be shaftesburytown.co.uk a totally non-commercial website run by community members.
 * This has been before editors before and even the arb panel (who rejected it as a content dispute). The consensus was to keep only the shaftesburytown.co.uk link. Before continuing to maintain good faith could you please state your relation to the shaftesburydorset.com website? Thank you --Curuxz (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about Shaftesbury websites last year did not involve shaftesburydorset.com - this website was only linked for the first time in wikipedia in January 2008 after numerous people wondered why the most extensive town website (and in accordance with Wiki practice, the Offical town website as it is wholly owned by the Town Council) was not offered by a resource on Wikipedia when it is on other websites. After dialogue with editors through wikipedia-en-help, it was at THEIR recommendation that this link DID MEET Wiki standards and at THEIR recomendation that the explanation was put on the discusion page (indeed the wording was agreed through this dialogue on winkpedia-en-help). This explanation included the quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL "If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. It is therefore for independant editors to decide NOT another editor.  No-one could understand why you are so protective of the shaftesburytown website being the only link?  The link to shaftesburydorset has been back.  Please stick to protocol and leave it to independant editors to decide as per wiki policy - you have no right to independently remove this link (no-one has removed yours).  You keep referring to an "Edit War" - whatever that is - when you are the only one removing information.    Ia am quite happy to refer the issue through the WP:DR process. People should have the CHOICE to view a range of resources, especially those kept up-to-date on a daily bases.Sgts (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's this "diaglogue with editors" then? Unless you can provide it, there is no proof you've ever talked to any other editors about it. What's so difficult with providing the evidence??! 86.138.52.177 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I still see no evidence that you have had any discussion and I agree completely with the above comment. Thank you Athaenara for your valuable contribution to this discussion, it is the problem that I have with this situation. This user seems to have made an account with the sole intention of promoting a commercial site (without declaring if they have an interest, with respect to good faith it does seem as tho they are involved some how in shaftesburydorset.com as their description of it sounds very much like the sales pitch that the task force makes when trying to sell advertising (feel free to email them anyone and see what i mean! "kept up-to-date on a daily bases"). I agree their account is a single purpose one and must must respond to my request to clarify any conflicts of interest as I and others have done in the past. The fact remains that a link to shaftesburydorset is in a commercial intrest since they sell advertising and shaftesburytown does not, more over shaftesbury town ANYONE involved in the town can get a page THEY control much akin with the wiki nature of wikipedia! It is only natural that in a choice of the 3 sites shaftesburytown would be the logical inclusion. Lastly you saying that shaftesburydorset's link has not been involved in this dispute before only goes to prove you have not read the past discussion and edit history which is clear that persons involved with that site attempted to place it on here. Please provide a stronger case for possible commercial promotion on this page. Thank you --Curuxz (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (PS: I am requesting more editors get involved to show you that it is not just us that think this!)


 * 1) Just to clarify I have no agenda or axe to grind. I am a volunteer in the Tourist Centre where people comment they have seen the website on other sites but not Wikipedia. I thought it should be there.... and the rest is history.  Anyway, to prove I really DID seek advice I have asked for the logs be released.  I'm just surprised a simple link to the website owned by the Town Council could stir up such vitriol! It might charge a small sum (£2 per month) to support the site but it is not profit-making.  It just happens to be a VERY up-to-date website that our visitors think is great. I just think visitors to Wikipedia should also be given a CHOICE of resources, that's all.Sgts (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not gonna get too involved in this, only to say that the said discussion took place on IRC, in the #wikipedia-en-help channel on freenode. I do have logs, but will not post them as per IRC guidelines.  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After gaining permission from all users listed on the chatlogs, I am glad to say that I can now post the logs, and have done, at User:Stwalkerster/Random Subpage. Feel free to move this page out of my userspace if you wish, just a little note on my talk page would be nice to say that you have done so. Don't expect that page to remain as it is now, though. I may want to use it for something else. ;)  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * while im glad to see another editor getting involved we still have a user with a single purpose account, breaking the 3 edit rule and failing to discuss before editing without declaring if he/she has/has not any conflict interest. Too many unanswered questions at the moment in my book...--Curuxz (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I take exception to the article posted above as Chairman of the Shaftesbury & District Tourism association & Chairman of the Blackmore Vale tourism company that runs the Tourism information centre in Shaftesbury as a Not for profit organisation since NDDC relieved itself of tourism responsibilities in 2003. The official web site for Shaftesbury owned by Shaftesbury Town council & managed by Shaftesbury Task force along with Shaftesbury Rotary Club the Chamber of commerce & the tourism office is www.shaftesburydorset.com This site was built for the town & only uses the funds it raises through sponsorship ads to run community facilities like the TIC for the town otherwise these free services would dissappear. Nobody involved in the maintainence or upkeep of the site does so for a profit & we would apprecieate you recognising this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.11.251 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved your comment to the correct place on the page since you put it with past discussion. You say that "Nobody involved in the maintainence or upkeep of the site does so for a profit"....well how do you explain the THOUSANDS of pounds LA Marketing and Design make for the design and upkeep of your website. They sure as hell are in it for a profit. Not to mention its a widely known fact that if you are who you say you are you have business interests in the town which directly benefits from increased tourism. Anyone in the town who knows the history of the issue know that Trisidian offered you the entire shaftesburytown system FREE 3 years ago, and the people that are on wikipedia know a lot more about computers and the internet that you realize and clearly see the the FREE alternative was a better designed more sophisticated system not to mention a full CMS without your use of 'gate keepers' to upload content.


 * As someone who knows the people involved on both sides I can tell you the amount of resentment over poor design and lack of functionality for the massive amount of public money wasted on shaftesburydorset, the owners (of shaftesburytown) have numerous emails complaining about such waste to them and I'm sure they could be publicly released if they felt the need. You do what you do for PROFIT, very clearly. You would not spend your time doing it otherwise, there is NO commercial gain or motivation to shaftesburytown and thats why wikipedia preferences it! The only business directory is FREE and is infact build on the official chamber of commerce directory, since their site shaftesburybusiness.co.uk directly links and feeds information into shaftesburytown along with a growing number of organizations your website has left out in the cold because they have no method of generating revenue, like the complete lack of historical information on your site for a town built on its rich history. You know what I see? I see a COMMERCIAL organization that recently lost the top spot in google to Shaftesbury PLC, who's page rank is falling by the day while shaftesbury town gets bigger and stronger, your business is losing its valuable profits and instead of trying to improve your own site you are coming here claiming 'official' entitlement to put what ever you want on wikipedia and instead of going through the proper channels in a civilized way you get everyones backs up by ignoring us and doing what you want anyway. --Curuxz (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is now getting silly, we may need to consider spam can'ing this link on wikipeida because the owners of this site seem to have withdrawn from discussion and are now just posting their link when ever they come on-line. --Curuxz (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

The only edits by user Sgts to the article have been to add the link (examples:    ).

User Sgts is not an "independent editor" but what is called a single-purpose account. The user should stop adding the link and leave the decision to others. — Athaenara ✉  19:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've also been approached to pass comment. I do not believe this site that is being added is non-commercial on the grounds that it advertises businesses. I'm also concerned that this is being pushed as an "Official Town Website": By who's account is this "official"? It is not on a .gov domain.


 * The site is not particularly informative, nor does it cite its own sources. In this capacity I'd be inclined to omit this as an external link. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you jza this is exactly the point i have been trying to make for so long about these other two sites, they both sell advertising and show little regard for others on wikipedia, they just want their link top of the pile to drive traffic. While shaftesburytown is not best in every area, it is at the very least open and free and is always trying to improve not simply branding its self official for commercial gain. Its owned by the task force not the council and even if it were the council website it still like you say is not a gov (or even a .co.uk!!!). Btw the transcript that you posted shows that sgts portrayed the argument in a very very one sided way in that irc room, you cant go into a room full of editors say yours is the 'official' site then come in saying they agree with you, thats not how things work around here! --Curuxz (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jza84 above - the site seems to add little to no additional value to the page. While the external links guideline recommends linking to an official site, it doesn't mean every official site, and official for a geographic place is not clear cut.  There's no innate encyclopedic value to a tourism website, especially for a place not particularly known for tourism.  Better to keep the links focused on sites that are most likely to appeal to and provide further encyclopedic information for general readers. -- SiobhanHansa 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You make an interesting point Hansa, because there is no history section on the shaftesburydorset site, but the shaftesburytown website is working with the dorset online parish clerks to get their entire historical database connected with the site, adding masses of historical information. Not to mention a large photogallery on the shaftesburytown site that again is a good resource for people interested in the town. Thank you for supporting the claim to keep it off the page. --Curuxz (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * www.shaftesburydorset.com's registrant is "Shaftesbury & District Task Force Ltd" (http://taskforceshaftesbury.org.uk), shaftesburydorset.com is the task forces "community website". Make of it what you will.
 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes its interesting because of this site you link to says "Shaftesbury & District Task Force have a community website: www.shaftesburydorset.com" NOT the council has one, its the task forces website. The other side of thing is that the task force has got funding but I am certain has NOT repaid a penny to the council because they DO NOT own it. I have emailed the council and asked if they own it as these other people claim, however I already know the reply will be a NO. I have left a message on this users talk page (or rather their IP address) requesting they disengage because they have repeatedly ignored due process and discussion. They need to go away for a few months, calm down, read the wikipedia rules and then come back with a good reason they want to be on this page and how it will benefit our users of wikipedia MORE than the commercial gain of them selfs. --Curuxz (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Full protection
I've fully protected this page because of the heavy anon link attack and edit warring. Please sort this out or take this to dispute resolution--Hu12 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I offered a third opinion several days ago, specifically addressing the issue of single-purpose accounts which repeatedly linked a website.


 * Because controversy about external links has continued, I spent some time at both websites this morning. They both appear to be reasonable selections for the external links.


 * Some of the differences between them:
 * shaftesburydorset.com added 2 cookies and has a page translator for ten languages other than English
 * shaftesburytown.co.uk added 5 cookies and has a member login feature


 * After studying both websites, I have concluded that they are comparable. Both of them are suitable for inclusion in the external links section.  Neither of them needs an "official" designation.


 * I have edited the section accordingly. I also edited the link description for the 3D images to link anaglyph images, and removed the external link to a website about Shaftesbury Abbey: that article presumably has its own external links section.


 * I do not live in Shaftesbury. I have neither prior involvement with the article nor a conflict of interest about the subject.  — Athaenara  ✉  17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be equivalent, but it does not add new information that is encyclopedic above and beyond the links already there. Given that there is dispute over the addition and the page has been fully protected, it seems you are inappropriately using your administrator tools by adding it back in without gaining further agreement on this talk page. (I also do not live in Shaftesbury.  And I have neither prior involvement with the article nor a conflict of interest about the subject.) -- SiobhanHansa 18:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They launch personal attacks on me on their talk pages, while claiming i am censoring them and have conflicts of interest. I have an account, I declared ALL my conflicts of interest long long ago and have NEVER hidden them. They edit without consensus, use IP addresses and act like it is their right to be on wikipedia. It seems that you have rewarded them for breaking the rules and after seeing their highly inappropriate links to my personal bebo page! --Curuxz (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly is an abuse of Admin tools.--Hu12 (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I described the two websites as comparable, not equivalent. I was neutral and cautious, not bold, and carefully explained my reasoning.  I do not comprehend how it could possibly be interpreted as inappropriate or as an abuse of admin tools.  — Athaenara  ✉  01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You used your administrator tools to add disputed content back into a fully protected article which resulted from edit warring over that disputed content, and did so without gaining further agreement or discussion. Your sysop powers are not a trump card nor is it carte blanche to impose your prefferd version by acting without consensus. --Hu12 (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with Hu12, and then Athaenara had the cheek to accuse Curuxz of having a conflict of interest when in fact he was at that point (May 2007) backing the insertion of the shaftesburytown.co.uk website and NOT the shaftesburydorset.com one that this whole issue relates to. Looks like you have waded it to this debate far too quickly and without getting your facts straight first and upset multiple editors as a result. Well done. 86.138.52.177 (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is, unless there is a discussion with an outcome that everyone can agree on, the edit warring will continue. That is the purpose of protection. I don't care what that outcome is, but there needs to be some colaborative editing, COI or not.--Hu12 (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing from debate on links
Clearly we have a problem here and need to try and resolve the situation. I have just spoken with the above director of the tourism assoc. and explained the reason for this dispute and I want to make it clear here my views before I withdrawn my self from the debate because its really not in the interest of the town to have such a petty argument over a link.

The reason I objected to the link being placed here was the lack of discussion and willingness to wait for others to agree. All they had to do was post a request here, give others a few weeks to take a look and it would be on no problem but they must understand the problems that this page has had in the past with external links. They WERE told very early on and yet kept editing without seeking a consensus.
 * I am not against the link to shaftesburydorset.com being on the Shaftesbury wikipedia page, in fact I think it should have a place here.
 * Having spoken with the tourism assoc director I get the impression they are not trying to engage in an edit war and as such I think this is the result of a misunderstand of the wikipedia rules.
 * I would like to make it clear that even IF I stop removing their link (which wikipedian rules clearly state was the right thing hence the ban on the ip address of the user posting and locking of the page to stop it) that other editors without my intervention will still seek to remove the link because it broke the rules by not discussing fully and openly.
 * I have openly stated (and made NO attempt to hide) in the past who I am, and my connection with the website as people can see last year when this went to dispute resolution. I am not in violation of my conflict of interest because I was acting to protect the consensus, as stated by an editor last year.

'''I believe that in order to solve this I need to cease my protection of the page, so its clear its third parties NOT me who want the consensus upheld and Stgs needs to apologise for breach of the rules NOT TO ME but to the other editors who acted in good faith wanting further discussion FIRST. Providing both links are kept on the page I see no reason why we can not move forward and I commit my self not to edit the page other than to improve the content (ie not the links).'''

Regards J Hughes --Curuxz (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply From David Shepherd Chairman Shaftesbury & District tourism Association & Chairman of the Not for Profit company that runs the TIC for everyone in & around Shaftesbury under quite difficult circumstances & seek no rewards they simply wish to see something they feel very worth while continue, which has been the case with tourism & the TIC over the past few years in Shaftesbury. They have all done a tremendous job in keeping the service open to public over the past few years & taken on various additional roles & responsibilities with much gusto & enthusiasm, They have nothing but my admiration & support, for without them there would be no TIC regardless of any money or help I may offer from time to time. My role is purely in expertise from a business & financial point of view I have never got involved in the running of the TIC on a day to day basis I simply do not have the time, but I do appreciate it's worth so much so in fact I spend alot of my own money each year supporting it.I do however greatly admire those who do give their time up voluntarily to do things like this for our town. When they are asked questions by members of the public the volunteers do there best to respond to them, They don't look at past history's or disputes they may not even be aware of them or rules or protocols that surround certain situations they simply do their best to serve the community they live in. When this is seemed to be undermined by people undoing work they have done i.e. removal of a site they feel should be there, There is great offence taken as if it is a personal snub to them & the work they do? Now it may be other editors have been at work on wikipedia which have brought about this situation but I implore all those involved to allow this site to remain alongside shafteburytown on wikipedia & let the great public that have asked for it to determine which one or both they wish to visit. Many Thanks for your anticipated support & I trust this will help end the dispute that has arrisen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.11.251 (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly I thank Mr Hughes for his support as above and ask others to follow suit.
 * All Volunteers are very proud of the work they do especially when they do so
 * David we're all volunteers here too. Many Wikipedia editors spend significant time researching, writing and editing to try and build this encyclopedia, so maybe you can also empathize with us. We see someone coming to Wikipedia with a goal, that isn't necessarily entirely compatible with the purpose of this project, who ignores the process we have for resolving differences of opinion when it looks like they may not get their way.  We really need to start concentrating this discussion on the content of the various links and what they add to the page for our general readership.  If the two links provide different and appropriate information then it would be a good idea to include them both.  If, on the other hand, they are pretty similar in content then we need to choose between them because it's not appropriate to send our readers to several sites that duplicate content simply because a bunch of people want their favorite sites listed.  We're not a portal for all the links to do with Shaftesbury - editorial decision making is a large part of what we do to make articles good.    -- SiobhanHansa 13:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Livestock Markets
I noticed the line about one of the last places to have livestock markets, what is the citation for this? It seems unlikely since there are many cattle markets still in operation in farming areas. Could someone clarify this please? --Curuxz (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)