Talk:Sheldon, Derbyshire/Archive 1

I've noticed that this page is becoming the location for an edit war by a certain user related to the controversy content. Please try and keep content referenced and in line with the policies of wikipedia. I don't want to read a tit-for-tat argument about who is right; please take your problems elsewhere.

--A scanner lightly (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems that the edit war has continued. Please look at the guidelines for working with Wikipedia before doing any more silly edits; logging out doesn't mean that you aren't noticed ;-)

--A scanner lightly (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

I reverted the wholesale removal of the controversy section as a large amount of well sourced material was deleted without discussion (or even an edit summary). Per WP:BRD, please discuss proposed changes here prior to cutting out large swathes of cited material. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 02:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The sourced info has once again been removed, along with categories etc. as individuals are simply blanking the entire second half of the article. In order to make such vast changes, you have to discuss the changes on this talk page first. If consensus is reached that the info should be changes/removed, then the article can be updated. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have once again restored the deleted material, references and categories. I really don't care how this plays out, however Pippie Langkous you cannot keep wholesale deleting entire swathes of text, reference sections and categories without discussing it here first. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 23:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Ponyo; I've grown quite sick of having to revert edits on this page. It is a shame that people have to behave like spoiled brats :P --A scanner lightly (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reaction as i havent had time. I hear your comments and dont have a problem to discuss the reasons i have to want certain parts of the page "sheldon, Derbyshire "deleted. Me as a reader and local from Sheldon finds it completly not doing justice to the village. As more than half of the text seems to go about the "home Farm" this text should have his own page and leaves the general "Sheldon "page open to general information about history, sights and culture from Sheldon villige. I appreciate your input and as i am new here i appologize to have erased in a seeminly inappropriate way. Please note which part i would really like that have removed from this site and if you would be so kind remove the by me indicated txt.thanks.(pippie 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Pippie, Wikipedia is not censored, so you cannot have referenced content removed simply because it's unflattering or you don't like it. Note that the section does seem long compared to the remainder of the article, which could fall under WP:UNDUE and there is a concern of recentism. Since you are adament that you do not want the content there, and User:A scanner lightly would obviously like it to remain as they authored the section, I think a third opinion may be necessary. I became involved as I was concerned with the blanking of the section without discussion, however I have no specific opinion regarding the content itself. As you have mentioned that you are a new user, I will file a third opinion on your behalf, but please understand that if the outcome is not in your favour then the information will have to remain until concensus is reached otherwise. Hope this info helps --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this particular discussion before I removed the section, so if consensus is that this dispute is of encyclopedic significance, I apologize. However, I don't see any sources about this dispute that are anything other than everyday local news, about as encyclopedic as 'mayor attends fundraiser' or 'animal shelter to close.' It seems to me that the section only exists so that locals can fight about this news event through the pages of Wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS seems to me to apply. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

In general, one should not remove well-sourced material from an article without discussion. The section in question here is quite well-sourced, and as such should probably remain in the article in some form.

However, there is a serious question of balance, given that the Controversy section is more than half of the article. There shouldn't be a controversy section in an article that is a stub. If the article subject is notable specifically because of the controversy, the controversy information should be incorporated into the lede. It doesn't sound to me like that is the case here, although I'm not familiar with the subject matter so I could be wrong.

A better solution would be to add more information to the article, so that the Controversy section can remain without issues of undue weight. Many small towns have non-stub articles...would it be possible to expand this article significantly? Maybe add some demographic information, expand the history, and add information about notable residents, institutions, or companies if any? MirrorLockup (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I have not problem with adding more information. However, as the village is very small (approx. 60 people) there really isn't a great deal going on to report other than that covered by controversy section. I would be happy to add more information regarding the local history group, hunt meetings, and further information about farming if we agree that the controversy section can remain. It should be noted that the person who edits this page as pippie langkous uses the fact that he/she is a resident of Sheldon as an excuse. As you might have guessed I am also a resident and a junior member of the planning committee and parish meeting (representing the views of all village residents), and consider that the only person who would have a problem with the content would be the owner(s) of the property in question in the controversy section.

I would however, like to raise a more serious point here as I believe that there might have been a little "sock puppeting" going on; it is highly likely that the users maxkohanzad and pippie langkous are one and the same person; this is a very important point as you can see from the edit history that maxkohanzad actually has added significant portions of text to the controversy section in the past, text that he is now trying to remove. This is a difficult one as all of the details within the section in question are referenced, and true. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is no bias as both sides of the argument are represented. --A scanner lightly (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've become intrigued enough to take a peek around online to see if there is additional info that can be added. I think adding a history section explaining the significance of mining in the area as well as additional info regarding Magpie mine could help flesh the article out. The Church could also be used as a focal point in the article. This website seems to have a lot of good info that can be used as a source. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but as Magpie Mine actually sits outside the parish of Sheldon, it might be better elsewhere; I will continue to add more information however to new sections. --A scanner lightly (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A scanner lightly, sockpuppet detection isn't my strongest talent, but I'm not seeing the connection between MaxKohanzad and Pippie Langkous, other than the complete lack of overlapping timeframe. They aren't stacking any votes, tag-team 3RRing, or evading sanctions. If you both live in the same town of 60 residents, don't you know each other in real life anyway? :)

Pippie, if the article is expanded such that the Controversy section doesn't sound like the only part of the article that is important, does that satisfy your concerns? Also, can you alter your signature such that it links to your user talk page? To do so, click on My Preferences at the top of any page, uncheck the box titled "Sign my name exactly as shown.", and click the save button at the bottom of the form. This makes it much easier for us to see who you are when you post on the talk page and is common wikicourtesy. MirrorLockup (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Thanks for your add mirrorlockup , its totaly not my aim to hide my identity or any other kind of violation, as i said earlier i am new here and try my best to follow the rules, so i realy appreciate your input. Just keep in mind "A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns" as you said and which is a very apprporiate comment here. The annoying bit is that User:A scanner lightly seems to have (personal??) problems for a fellow resident wanting to change some of his input.(pippie 19:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

I do have is an issue with representing the truth on the Wiki. The additional material added, in response to the wholesale removal of facts by, in the first instance, User:MaxKohanzad and then by User:Pippie_Langkous, should allay your concerns about being "picked on". I also note that there now seems to be an issue with the current state of occupancy of land discussed in the section: unlawful is a point of view, whereas tenant is merely a state. -- A scanner lightly (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As this is not the right place to haggle about minor issues A skanner lightly, unlawful refers to the legal state of occupation from the land , please get the facts right. No disrespect towards you, i got the feeling you feel"attacked"by remarks or changes from my side however i just want to improve and expand this article about our beloved Sheldon village whicj is rapidly growing and expanding.(pippie 19:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Can you provide a reliable source, like a neutral newspaper article, that confirms that 'unlawful' is the best, most accurate, most neutral word to use there? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fisher Queen a land occupied by someone without any legal rights should according to me not be proved by the owner from the land but by the so called "tenant". If you have any other, better suggestions for the word"unlawful"please feel free, thx (pippie 20:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Please, please, make your comments on the next line to make them readable. Yes, I'm asking for a reliable source- not you, but a newspaper article, that says that this land is occupied unlawfully. That's the Wikipedia rules, that we verify information from reliable sources. I noticed that your contributions seems to be pushing a specific point of view, and it's important to remember that we do our best to write neutrally, and always verify our information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Final word on this as I've got my life to return to ;) Please see §7 of Reference #9 where the status of the land is clearly defined "...from around February 2005 the agricultural land is let out to another farmer." --A scanner lightly (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

skanner lightly please again get the facts right< invalid contract . In case you are interested in some more details or you have some questions feel free to email me, probably a more appropriate place to exchange some opions, soyaputin@yahoo.com thank you (pippie 21:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

I've changed the tenancy to disputed so as to please everyone, even thought I've presented evidence above regarding the current status. Unless the owner of the land wants to chip in with evidence to the contrary, I propose that this silly edit war stops with disputed tenancy. --A scanner lightly (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Please stop adding your comments to the end of other users' comments, because it makes them nearly impossible to find, and I'm tired of reformatting for you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fisher Queen no need to be so unfriendly .....still learning;-)) thx (pippie 21:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs) Special thanks to scanner lightly for the perfect description of the occupied land!(pippie 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs)

hmm, well it is certainly a better compromise than deleting the whole section or "unlawful", at least until there is solid evidence regarding the current status of the tenancy --A scanner lightly (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Solid evidence regarding the current status of the tenancy will be provided very soon and it would be well appreciated if we still could expand the Sheldon article as up to now the controvesry part and specialy the reference part is in my opinion still well out of proportion ....(pippie 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs)

As you say, you are a resident of the village so why don't you add more information about the goings on e.g. cream teas, history group, hunt meetings? You can't moan about lack of content if you are willing to step up and provide some of your own! Why not start by writing a section about the history of the village fete, and how the structure will change for next year; everyone in the village is aware of this by now. Finally, as tenancy agreements are made between two parties, how are you proposing to provide evidence of the tenancy if you aren't related/involved with the goings on at the building in question? --A scanner lightly ([[User talk:|talk]]) 16:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A scanner lightly this is not a Twitter page so if you would like to have any information not relevant for this page please feel free to email me.It seems we dont have the same sources to obtain information from about proceedings going on in our village. Furthermore "official website of the Sheldon Parish meeting" i propose to take it of for the moment as it doesnt seem to work properly and needs to have a necessary update. As i dont want to offend anybody here i ask a third opion to take this link off until it has undergone an update .At the moment it is strangly enough only refering to the subject of the controversy section and that doesnt seem to be the essence of the general website of the Sheldon Parish meeting.Please i ask a third opion about the mentioned website and advice to take it off the page.(pippie 17:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

I noticed it has a problem with anything but IE, but that is a problem for outside of WP and not here; please take that up with the webmaster whom you should also know. However, it is the website of the parish meeting, working or not. This pathetic tit-for-tat is getting rather boring tbh, so I'm half expecting an admin to weigh in soon. Feel free to edit the page as you see fit, you will undo any fair changes that I make anyway. --A scanner lightly (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear you agree that site has problems so i feel free as you say to take it off as a not functioning reference is rather useless refering to. As you stated before you are the chairman of the parish meeting i would say its more your responsibility than that of a random inhabitant of Sheldon to fix the site . I am looking forward seeing the site back on in a "repaired"version. Thanks. (pippie 19:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs)

You are so wrong it is untrue. If you actually read this discussion, I've never said I was the chairman! I think you need to go and get some facts straight, and if you think that someone has a personal vendetta against you, perhaps you should take it to them directly (instead of slinging mud as you were rightly warned about yesterday). Honestly, all I'm trying to do is keep this article on an even keel; your constant undoing of edits is rather tiresome. First you request a third opinion, then your remove sections of text, then you add them back in again. Didn't you read the warning that the admin issued yesterday? --A scanner lightly (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, continue to play silly beggers; I've asked an admin to have a look at the recent editing behaviour --A scanner lightly (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A not functioning website should not be used as a reference. I realy dont see why you cant agree with that and why you react as it is something to you personal which is definitaly not the case, i just find it highly suspiocious that on the discussed website just the article about"home Farm"is visible. All i ask to put a functioning website as a reference. thank you. (pippie 20:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs)

Please show me that policy on Wikipedia. Anyway, the website reference is now fixed to show a text only version; as that was your objection, you should now leave things be. --A scanner lightly (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Took notice of the fixed website, thank you for contacting so fast the webmaster(;-).......the sheldon parish meeting has nothing else to mention than issues concerning Home Farm?? Should not be on here in its current format.(pippie 21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs)

Somebody else can entertain you I think, you obviously have some issues regarding the content that aren't going to be satisfied with grownup behaviour; I trust that common sense will eventually prevail here. --A scanner lightly (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly let common sense decide if all this information which is simply more of the same should be on here(pippie 21:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs)

Controversy section

I have taken the liberty of removing this section. Wikipedia is not the news, and I can't see anything that makes me think that this particular local land squabble is of any lasting significance to explaining the history or importance of this place. I request that anyone who wishes to add information regarding this particular issue make sure that you can source its importance by citing significant coverage of the squabble in newspapers other than the local paper. Does anyone outside of Sheldon give a fig about this? An encyclopedia article is a place to explain what Sheldon is- not a place to fight out non-notable local disputes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see your thoughts behind this, but as it is in a National Park, the ramifications of the various planning issues might have national significance. The item is sourced and referenced, so personally I think it should remain in some form; perhaps remove the section on the track appeal as it is now largely historical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.109.79 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Summery: i've not change online identity & grievances are justified but real life discussions would be better than a Controversy Section.

A Scanner Lightly? - I'm not the same person as whoever it is you've suggested. I'm just me, Max Kohanzad. But you'll just have to take my word for that. The controversy section actually helped the google ranking from our B&B website, as does the Parish Meeting website - as they link to Matlock Advertiser which links to our site.

I'm glad i'm not the only one a little surprised by the obsession with Home Farm. That having been said, i'd welcome a more balanced and objective Controversy section that i wasn't banned from contributing to.

I'd just like to end with this; i know that my uncle is actually crazy and a dirty crook and that my dad speaks in a foreign accent, is somewhat crazy & confrontational and doesn't think before he does anything at Home Farm, BUT... I am not them, and i wish you'd stop treating me, both, here in wiki & elsewhere with the same contempt as you might justifiably feel for my uncle and my dad.

All I can say is that I don't believe a word you say given given the current behaviour on here. If you have grievances, you know where everyone lives, why not go and talk them out? Until then, please stop your issues from being aired on WP. --A scanner lightly (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry what "current behaviour", i've literally just added this little section last night, and have not been on wiki for months, because i really don't like it (i'm significantly dyslexic and find the entire text based page most annoying), please reference what behaviour you are falsely accusing me of? Please also highlight and reference what issues I have that you don't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxKohanzad (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than a Controversy Section let's have real, open, discussions in the village? I'm happy to talk to you all in the real world face to face, one to one, and you'll judge who i am for yourselves. my email address is redacted- please do get in touch so that we can arrange a time to talk calmly and sanely about your real concerns, (please do not bring your pitchforks), many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxKohanzad (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed your email address, because it's not a good idea to publish your email on Wikipedia unless you really enjoy spam. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fisher Queen, thanks for your constructive input and changes. Sorry if i did upset you, strating to understand how it all works here. Thanks for your patience.(pippie 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs)

A scanner lightly? please let me know with whom I have 'grievances' and what they are exactly? ie. cite them here on wiki, because apart from my natural aversion to the frankly aggressive tone and tactics adopted by yourself and the other John, to someone you don't actually know or had any meaningful real life conversion with, the village have been genuinely warm friendly and welcoming.

I can't see any aggressive tone adopted here or elsewhere; what is the problem with John? --A scanner lightly (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh in response to your suggestion, I'd like to talk out the grievances i have with You, in person, when might be a good time for me to knock on?

Well I guess you might have found out my address from whois. To be honest, coming around wouldn't do very much as there isn't a great deal to talk about. However, if you promise to be civil, then you are welcome; perhaps we could call a ceasefire and leave common sense to prevail? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by A scanner lightly (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a "Home Farm Sheldon" Open Forum - somewhere else, because wikipedia is not the place for it, so that people can publish whatever they want and we can have a real discussion? what do you all think/feel?

Anyone can see that MaxKohanzad and Pippie Langkous are not the same person, the syntax formation is very different, the entire way of structuring arguments, the language, the logics uses etc... unless i have a very serious personality disorder? I'd also guess that Pippie... is a woman. Has anyone checked Pippie's IP Address? is it in anyway related to mine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxKohanzad (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC) MaxKohanzad (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've set up an open forum - here -> http://homefarmsheldon.myfreeforum.org/forum1.php i'm happy to have everyone be a admin and let's see what happens. MaxKohanzad (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this still going on in here. The section has been removed, you should be happy. As I've said, I've got a life to get on with, perhaps you should get on with yours? --A scanner lightly (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea....and yes, for anybody who had doubts.... MaxKohanzad is right....i am a woman;-)) (pippie 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs)

Hmmmmm got the impression that Skanner lightly is not amused that the controversy section has been taken off and is acting a bit childish. This page we all try to improve and update with neutral , valid information about Sheldon!The fact that after deleting the controversy section skanner lightly suddenly has a life to get on with says it all. People afraid of confontation are in my opinion weak and insecure people, just consider that thought, skanner lightly, and....dont worry...i am not afraid of confrontation so in the near future you will hear from me at the Parish meeting (pippie 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs)

You are right, all I am trying to do is keep this flipping article on an even keel! In fact, you can see that the fact that I haven't put it back on means that I'm not acting childish. We could have gone through a million undo/redos but life is too short. --A scanner lightly (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You`re completly right...life is too short and issues are there to be dealt with. See you soon (pippie 21:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippie Langkous (talk • contribs)

Finally, we agree on something! --A scanner lightly (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A Proposal: As we are never going to agree with the content of this page I propose the following: 1. The WP article stays free of planning issues 2. The village twitter feed stays free of planning issues (now deleted) 3. You take any grievances you have with the village/planning to the chair/meeting for civil discussion. 4. I'm afraid that the village website is out of my hands; feel free to bring the contents up with the chair or webmaster. I think that is fair all around, and that way you aren't feeling misrepresented by the contents of any web source. --A scanner lightly (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

All parties seemingly agree to this proposal offline of WP so this matter is now closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A scanner lightly (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)