Talk:Stanstead, Suffolk

Additions to the Stanstead page

I have added a more detailed structure to the Stanstead page so that can now be developed by those with a far greater knowledge of Stanstead than myself. It would be great to see articles and photos added to the page covering for example history, geography, geology, ecology, economy, agriculture, education, transport, community facilities, sports and recreation, notable persons, interesting facts about the parish and much more.

Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

Major deletions that have been made to the Stanstead page

I am deeply concerned and disillusioned that major deletions were made to the Stanstead article in September 2013 without any notification or explanation by an Administrator. These changes in my view demonstrate the officious and unthoughtful way that Wikipedia is being administered and highlight the core reason why so many editors have left - http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ League Octopus 14:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason that a lot of the article was cut is because it was seriously inappropriate for Wikipedia. To summarise:

• The "History" section contained three sub-sections, none of which were actually about the village's history. The first was actually about the village's geogpraphy, and has been retained in that section. The second was about the root of the village's name, and has been retained as the more appropriate "Etymology" section. The third included the sentence "We still retain our Village Hall/Community Centre", which suggests it is either taken directly from the parish council website, or is written by someone who does not understand how Wikipedia works.
• The "Community Facilities" section was a joke. What on earth is the point of "Recreation ground. The village does not have a recreation ground."
• All the other deleted sections seemed pointless, particularly the landscape and the location grid one.

Basically the old version seemed to be written as if this article was the parish council website. Some of it is still cringeworthy ("it is easy to appreciate how this came about" being an example) and should have probably been cut further. This is patently not what Wikipedia is about. There is a manual of style for writing about British villages, which can be read at WP:UKVILLAGES. Number 57 16:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I really think that Administrators need to properly address the issue of whether or not they wish to encourage Editors to participate in Wikipedia. There is not a word of encouragement above just criticism and belittlement.League Octopus 18:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If whoever did this was a new editor, then I would have been super polite and explained in great depth the rules around contributing, as I did here when a new editor made a few mistakes in editing an article on a Suffolk village. However, you are a long-term editor (since 2008). Why do you think it is appropriate to have the word "we" in an article? I'm sorry if you took it personally, but you should really know better by now what is expected in an article. Number 57 21:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrators should always show courtesy and respect irrespective of whether they are dealing with an experienced editor or a beginner. Stanstead was one of my initial efforts three years ago in preparing a village article and looked like this at the outset. Yes it needed improvement but in my view a lot of my original content could have been improved rather than culled in a few seconds. The removal of all the photos I find particularly galling. I think you are aware that I am very concerned how Wikipedia is being administered and I did in fact spend last year out of the project before deciding to return this year to help develop WP content in an African country. League Octopus 09:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stanstead, Suffolk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928072020/http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A546F6B2-3218-4537-9398-384E6BA430C5/0/CensusParishdata.pdf to http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A546F6B2-3218-4537-9398-384E6BA430C5/0/CensusParishdata.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)