Talk:Beyton

Geese

So, looking into this it looks as if the geese issue is being pushed as pov by an individual in the village. I can only find reference to an individual. The story of filming and the general geese element is worth inclusion I think - there are sources that show it's notable enough. But we can't push pov - and the current emphasis on all sorts of statistics is clearly not NPOV - and that's the key on wikipedia. The issue of the parish council resigning after being put under pressure by an individual filming meetings and generally pursuing a hobbyhorse issue is worth covering in more depth perhaps - perhaps someone can find plenty of sources to tell that story as it's a local government issue that has potential wider notability.

I'll look further, but as it stands I see too much POV in this still given the reporting I've read. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@FMGCCID: I took this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography - the wikiproject which oversees articles about places. As I suspected, the subheading certainly needs to be focussed on the parish council. I've reverted to show my diff there - there may be further comment on that. What is clear is that WP:UNDUE applies here - there's simply way too much on the geese and so much more that could be written about the place. Why don't you focus on those sorts of things? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography Correct, there is no need for this to be a thing about geese. Blue square thing made this about geese and I added to it. I have now deleted all reference to geese and added the subheading to parish council witch was in the news. I think this should satisfy everyone concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMGCCID (talk • contribs) 22:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

per wiki project guidelines, heading should be government. I've removed the personal attack and will edit this down rather more later on when I have a proper computer available. I'd suggest not throwing accusations around when the page history will very clearly show who did what. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing

I am have been trying to compromise with you the entire time. First it was the word "ruckus", I fixed that. Then it was not a good enough source. I fixed that. Then it was the username, I fixed that. Then you made it about geese and I added to your paragraph and I sourced it exactly like yours and you didn't like that. Then i got rid of any mention of geese and you don't like that. Everything I have sourced is from the internet. I am sorry that you don't like one sentence and a title but help me out here because you are the bias one and I am trying to compromise and you will not. All you do is delete everything I put because you don't like it. Don't you think it would be more helpful to just going back and forth deleting and try and agree on things?

OK - so, firstly I think you need to go back and take a look at the messages. I did't comment on your user name for example and t suggest that I "made it about geese" is utter tosh - the page history shows what the article was like and exactly who introduced what content. We need to conform to the wikiproject guidelines - they say use a sub-heading of government. It's not hard. Then we need to remove the personal attack you keep on insisting on brining in - there's no need to identify someone. To suggest that my edits are biased (sic) is the exact opposite of what's occurring - I'm trying to provide balance and context rather than push my hobby horse. To simply state that someone attempted to stop filming is garbage - the ramifications of that, with half the council resigning, are actually far more significant than an attempt to stop filming - and we need to help readers understand what the dispute might be about. Otherwise it's a throwaway sentence without context.

As for sources - I dunno, right now you have 3 sources here - none of which is properly formatted despite me very clearly showing you through my edits one way of formatting appropriately. You've removed a further six, all of which are pretty darned reliable and would meet just about any wikipedia criteria. Maybe I'm being thick. Maybe I'm not using my experience on wikipedia to make a judgement call that makes sense. I dunno - you decide, Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)