User talk:86.26.55.138

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Plymouth has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Will (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listed Building

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I was just thinking that your edit here [1] indicated that maybe you didn't understand what English Heritage was, and what Listed Building meant. Hopefully these links to the relevant wikipedia pages will be helpful. Cheers! Stevebritgimp (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Union Street

Hello - you keep removing the 'infamous' mention on the Union Street, Plymouth page. This is odd, as you haven't removed the same information from the Union Street, Plymouth page, even though you have edited that page within the last month. You seem happy to accept it on one article but not another. Also rather than add a citation tag you keep reverting. I will add a citation tag to the mention. I will not add it again if it is removed, as I will be revert warring and will have to desist. Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have deleted or challenged it on the other page although that was not my entry. i think that there is much local history indicating that the street was never frequented by soliciting prostitutes and that until the dolldrums after the first world war the area was very upmarket rather than violent or louche. The 'infamous' tag is I fear another attempt by those overselling the attractions of Plymouth to invent a degree of bogus notoriety just to give the place colour. Perhaps you would like to add the citation tag to the Union Street page or are you leaving it to me to delete? No one disputes the large number of pubs but then pubs were everywhere in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Gingernut. 5 3 8

You're not under any obligation to delete everything you see on wikipedia that isn't cited. Uncited comment can be freely removed, but after all this is supposed to be an encyclopedia where we add content, and if it isn't cited we decide what to do about it. Uncited entries that are particularly contentious are always fair game, as they could be legally dangerous, such as comments on biography pages. Similarly if things are factually misleading it serves no purpose having them there as they are counterproductive. I don't see what is legally dangerous or factually misleading by saying that Sutton Pool was tidal, and surely saying that it was formerly tidal (as opposed to an artificial or deep-water anchorage) illustrates why they put a lock there, and it also contributes to people understanding that it's odd that it took so long for a lock to be built. Removing non-contentious detail that helps a reader understand is not a helpful exercise in my opinion, and why I feel particularly defeated by things at the minute. I suppose you are leaving it to me to add the citation tag on the other Union Street page - I will do it purely to stop you deleting it, seeing as that seems to work. It appears you are in a deleting mode at the moment, where you repeated trawl through pages and delete stuff - I really don't see what you are trying to achieve by this. When someone gets a chance to get a library book we can set about providing a decent description of the street. But if the item isn't there at all people aren't going to know that the task needs doing. I would agree that in the early days the street was likely to be just the same as any other, and it would be interesting to find out how the history of the street developed. Certainly by the time of the abandoned car warehouses in the adjoining Millbay area the street had become run down. During the 1970s the street was the main venue for alcohol-related violence in the region (in association with the football team). It's biggest problem is that is the point of contact between forces personnel and civilians. I would associate infamy in this context with the violence, rather than slumminess. In terms of its older history, given that it was the only entertainment in the city it would have been likely to attract all sections of society - with attendant opportunities for infamy of other kinds. Like I say, what we need to do is find our library cards, find a history of the city, and find a few mentions. These can then be inserted, or used as a numbered reference on the page or pages. This would be a far more productive use of our time than continuous multiple edits to articles shifting them back and forth an inch or two each time (and them not staying in the same state from day to day so we can never let them settle and give them a proper review). Now a lot of the above stuff I've typed may sound shirty - it isn't intended to be, but I can't pretend that the last six months has been an enjoyable experience. You obviously have a lot of energy to spare in the editing department, maybe you could get a couple of books and try to find some worthwhile sources and content yourself. Personally I'm not much use at the moment as I confine myself to copyediting - I literally have lost my library card, and when it turns up I will probably give myself a few projects to do. Genuine regards. Stevebritgimp (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC) - Oh, and P.S. - why not set up a talk page and a user page? You've had several aliases over the last few months - you could get wikipedia to send out a reminder to you if you have forgotten your password on them. They send out an email to the address that you specified. Then you could write a bit about who you are, what you know and what your point of view on different subjects are. You might collect comments and warnings from peeved co-editors, but we all tread on toes while we're here, and we gradually learn to moderate what we do. I was told off for something I said on the Mike Read page - but I explained myself, and the troll that had repeatedly annoyed me there was dealt with by myself and another editor. Better keep all that information in one place. That way you learn and improve, and you actually get to meet and find out about the other users too. Cheers. Steve.

Hi. I do in fact have a substantial local history section in my study at home including most of the twentieth and twenty-first century tomes on Plymouth Devon and also Cornwall. I have a full original colour copy of the plan for plymouth and a lot of wartime material collected by my family. i have yet to find anything other than assumption and unsupported anecdote about Union Street's supposedly 'infamous' history. If you can point to any popular academic or other sources I will be pleased to research them and if they are available on the open market consider adding them to my own library.

Gingernut 7.3.8