Talk:Chapel St Leonards

Has this page been hijacked?!

The highly selective use of only the most positive 'facts' about the new observatory reads like a press release or an online advertisement, not an encyclopaedia entry. The pr-speak phraseology used is typical of the worst examples of mealy-mouthed, patronising ad man self-gratification. The salient facts about the place - like, the multi million pound cost; the fact the place is now 2 years past the project's completion date, yet STILL not yet open; the building was not constructed to the UK health and safety or disability discrimination act standards, which are many years old and were already in place when the project was originally planned, approved, and built; the sea defences uncovered during the build which apparently were unknown to all levels of local and national governments prior to beginning the works - I live 90 miles away, and as a casual visitor to the area, even I knew they were there ; the project's overspend... Etc etc etc. As it stands it's an advert for the cowboys responsible for this monstrosity, and for the councils and other assorted idiots who planned and paid out millions in taxpayers money for a comedy of errors to put Shakespeare to shame. If it's not been modified to include the missing info and remove the ad man guff within a week or so, I'll do it myself. Thanks Codeye (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, not hijacked. I am a specialist editor, mainly classic motorcycles and motorcycle racing but will do anything where I can contribute - when appreciated, that is. I regret that what I thought was competently-contributed has so clearly incensed you so vehemently. You present yourself as hostile.

I live 82 miles away and wrote the piece after visiting (I also visited last year, July, chanced upon it not knowing the background), giving careful consideration that there was insufficient content for a stand-alone article.

All of your vitriolic rant/opinions/conclusions above are immaterial and breach WP:NPOV already; I do not WP:OWN the article/section but you need to find accredited, published sources to exactly substantiate the content you feel you can add. You should know that very well with your lengthy editing background. I don't recall seeing any such, but I have moved on, largely. I know the gossip, took advice from locals (both this and last year), and took interior pics of the re-decorating/masking, but I tried to write it sympathetically and neutrally and with an eye to the future, not to primarily do a hatchet job on an over-budget white elephant. I could rant, too, but that's not what WP is for.

I'd also like to know if the gabian-baskets presently-bare Gabion baskets were originally intended for cladding (or planting with grasses and flowering species) and as such are unfinished or otherwise affected by austerity measures, but too much down-time = Law of Diminishing Returns.

Realistically, I can only do so much, and I wrote an over-view only; included was info from the published sources, even though they were clearly all based on the same press releases at similar times. I included a gallery of high-res camera images, only a minimum, carefully selected to give what I felt was a good reader experience - WP is not an image repository. I considered the costs, quoted variously, but also WP:NOPRICES; inclusion would pre-suppose that readers have enough specialist knowledge to consider whether the telephone number figures are actually germane to the article (at any particular point in time) which has to endure for many years.

I've also drafted an email to Look North TV News local (Belmont transmitter area) but is unsent as yet, as I feel they might just be swayed by the PR blurb/florid faced councillor yet again. I have the TV press-launch on hard-drive, and it's clear the drone-footage was cummulative - over many occasions, and that beach sand has been imported and groomed by machines as a backdrop to the actual inside-filming (the people with the dog visible in front of the viewing windows told me that). I can't include OR and Goss. It is what it is - it's not going away and may be an exorbitant, glorified cafe presently/for a time, and there may be serious design/build flaws, etc which will have to be addressed (you can see I clearly hinted at this in the caption of the image showing the lift door - and that was stretching things a bit, Wikipedia-style). I have seen the suggested 30 July opening but avoided amending to include it, per WP:CRYSTAL. I am also pleased the car park is (was?) without charge, at least temporarily. Looking forward to what you can contribute. #pr-speak phraseology #cowboys #monstrosity # mealy-mouthedpatronisingadmanself-gratification #assorted idiots #comedyoferrors Thanks for the laff --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)