Talk:Budbrooke

Non NPOV statement

I am really not happy with this statement "Due to the restaurant/takeway having an out of place décor, it is known by the locals by the nickname The Eyesore". To me it just seems like the editor who put in on there was annoyed that an Indian person opened an Indian restaurant. I've been to the bar a few times and it looks like a normal Indian Restaurant in a 1960s housing development. As the statement about it being an eyesore is referenced I am of course leaving it in. However I am trying to get hold of a copy to see if the parish newsletter states it is an eyesore. If it doesn't I'll delete the statement. Cls14 (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Further to this I have received the October 2013 Parish newsletter and it doesn't mention the bar, let alone calling it an eyesore. Therefore I have deleted all references to it being called so Cls14 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A response to Cls14

You may not like what had been wrote and that’s your prerogative. But I and others resent your implications and bogus claim you obtained copy of the newsletter. The fact remains ""The barrack bar Indian Restaurant"" under went a number of changes not just in name but use (change of use records have been obtained). By the time the owner had settled on the for mentioned name and it use, it had already gained the nicknamed The Eyesore. In fact the owner closed the restaurant/takeaway/bar for a short period in protest at local residents for referring to the establishment as ""The Eyesore"". Its under new management in the hope the negative publicity can be altered, however the nickname its gain like all nicknames is now etched in to peoples minds and in common use when referring to the establishment. The owners ethnicity had nothing to do with this but the bar appearance does, the white plastic cladding and removal of decades old hedgerow for white plastic fencing. A independent survey establish that local residents considered the new look restaurant/takeaway/bar was not only out of place in a historical village but was a eyesore and that was reported as such in the parish newsletter. I have lived in the area for close to 20 years and have been to a number of parish council meeting where the matter of the restaurant/takeaway/bar appearance and intended use have been the main agenda. I suspect Cls14 your not local to the area and simply peddling a subjective opinion based on either a single visit or the opinion and subsequent alteration is due to some sort of favour for restaurant/takeaway/bar owner, which is what I suspect is the true motive of the alterations. Can you provide evidence you got a copy of the newsletter mentioned and demonstrate that does it does not mention the said nickname or survey results. As I do have a copy and beg to differ. I also resent the statement that Budbrooke is just a 1960s housing development. There are a number of listed building and features that are centuries old. Your ignorance to this fact and the history of the area speaks volumes. One can only speculate you motives, but we will be watching for your changes. - Neal G

Response

I got the parish newsletter from the parish clerk. If you continue to make accusations against me I shall get your I.P. blocked. You're an unregistered user whose one thing you do on Wikipedia is to edit Budbrooke. Please consult about what Wikipedia is. You seem to not know. You are local and clearly have personal issues with the place, therefore you are not neutral. I am a visitor to the village on a semi-regular basis and have no agenda. I didn't like the restaurant that much, I didn't hate it. If you think that the bar is not surrounded by a 1960s housing development then you're deluded, it is. There are parts of the parish that have older buildings but not that part. Whilst we are at it you quoted initially that it was the October 2013 Parish Council newsletter that said it, now you say it's November. Moving the goalposts to confuse me. If you keep messaging me I shall attempt to report you and get your I.P. blocked. Cls14 (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just received a copy of the November 2013 parish newsletter from the parish clerk. It does not say anything in that about the pub being an eyesore. It only mentions the pub once, that is to say that the community are looking to buy it, and it was listed in a list with other assets. Cls14 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am a registered user User:D.R Neal G

Please re-frame from altering or making threats User:Cls14. I believe and with good reason, your alternating the page on behalf of the owner of the bar for commercial reasons. If you make any further alteration to mislead the general public about the village history on behalf of the owner of that bar. I will be seeking to have you account removed from Wikipedia. User: D.R Neal G

Removal of tornado section

There was a bit added about a tornado in the village. However I do not recall a tornado last year. I have Googled it and nothing. The reference given was a false one (Parish Newsletter April 2015, http://budbrookepc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Newsletter-April-2015.pdf) as what is referenced in the article is not in the newsletter. The user putting it in also falsely claimed that something was in another edition newsletter when it wasn't. Cls14 (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Again your not local to the village

Again your not local to the village and you basing your remove simply because you don't know about it, typical local council employee. Your the faceless one, there is very little about you and you making changes to pages based on what you know or don't know. User: D.R Neal G

Ok, registered user. Taken on board that you joined today. Cls14 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I will be seeking your remove from this page User: Cls14

User: Cls14 I will be seeking your remove from this page, as for accusations, your have already stated clearly in your responses you are basing your edits on what you remember and what you can find on Google. Quote "However I do not recall a tornado last year. I have Googled it and nothing". I have meteorology reports and eye witness testimony of the incident. However please state where in Hampton Magna you live or even if you live there, as I don't believe and you a local resident. Also you done nothing to counter any allegations, you refuse to state if you live in the Budbrooke area, you have refused to state where and when you have obtained a copy of the said newsletter, for verification. What you have done FACT as there is a recorded alteration of the page to portray a business in glowing terms. You have even censored any mention of The Veg Box in Grove Park a rival to the business. One can draw a fair assumption based on those facts, that your alteration appear to be commercially motivated. D.R Neal G (talk)

What's The Veg Box? Feel free to try and get me 'removed' from this page (which you can't). I'll discuss this with any administrator and they will back me I am sure. I don't live in the Budbrooke area. That's not relevant. I could live in Japan and I'd still be right. Wikipedia needs reliable references. For the pub one you've changed the reference twice now from October newsletter to Novembers to "addition to". I bet if I asked the clerk if there are any additions he'd say no. I'm going to keep reverting you're changes until you give proper cast iron references, as per Wikipedia's guidelines. If you can give reference for the tornados that third party people can check then by all means do it and I'll leave it in. Cls14 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Again User: Cls14

Again your arrogance exposes you Quote: Feel free to try and get me 'removed' from this page (which you can't) Don't make the mistake idiots or employees of Warwick district Council do thinking there is no one smarter or more savvy than them. You not the first person who has tried to change historic facts for commercial or vanity reasons. Quote: I'm going to keep reverting you're changes until you give proper cast iron references And I will be reverting them back, as your not abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines. No amount of evidence is going to convince you. As I have said, I believe the alterations your making are on the behalf of the owner of cost-cutters and the bar, possibly for payment. D.R Neal G

A Diplomatic Rewording

Quote - The change in appearance through the extensive use of white plastic cladding and picket fencing of the pub. Gained it the nickname the "The Eyesore" or simply "Eyesore" amongst local residents and patrons alike. There is currently a move to get the nickname incorporated or made the official title of the bar.

I hope this reword is more diplomatic and less NPOV, FACT 1 - The bar is covered in white plastic cladding and the picket fencing also, so a neutral point of view. Fact 2 local residents and patrons call it The Eyesore, again neutral point of view. Reference included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.R Neal G (talk • contribs) 22:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to ignore Wikipedia rules

Up to you. So far you've personally insulted me, made up references that are not real, refuse to understand such a basic principle such as you need to VERIFY your claim, especially when you are making negatives claims about a business. If you want to make Wikipedia worse simply by editing and arguing with an editor who has been on here ten years when you've only really just joined be my guest. It's a sad day for Wikipedia when people like you who can't follow the rules turn up. You are all that makes Wikipedia bad and I hope that very soon you get blocked by an administrator for your appalling behaviour. As far as this page is concerned, it's yours now, I've done trying to protect it from you. At least other editors can see I tried. Cls14 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Article re-build

When I get a free evening (when????) I will try and re-build the article a bit. Clearly the history section of it was lifted from another website and given the tripe that was put on here recently someone decided to play safe and remove it. Not a great article anymore as it just talks of the village since 2000 primarily. I have a few Warwickshire village books and there will be some websites I am sure to try and get some of the, very interesting, history of the village back on here Cls14 (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

My two books had nothing on it and there don't seem to be any useful website :-( Cls14 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Article was not plagiarised

It seems that someone removed article content on the grounds of it being plagiarised from https://britainshistory.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/budbrooke-and-the-black-death/ and http://budbrookepc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Budbrooke-Draft-Neighbourhood-Plan-August-2015.pdf In reality the opposite is true. Most of the "plagiarised" text dates from 2008, whereas the "original" sources date from 2013 and 2015. Therefore, unless time travel is involved, the Wikipedia article was the original, and others had ripped it off.

I restored the text, but it got reverted by User:JJMC89. While I agree that the article is under-referenced, I believe that wholesale removal without discussion was heavy handed and unhelpful. It was also done carelessly, placing "transport" in the "history" section. As for the veracity of the unsourced information, I can (having lived in Hampton Magna) attest that the removed content is true. It will be far more constructive to find sources, rather than do a delete-and-run.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 10:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with that to be fair Cls14 (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The section placement was unintentional. Per policy, the content should not have been restored without proper sourcing. You are not a reliable source. — JJMC89 (T·C) 11:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware that I don't count as a reliable source, and that proper citations need adding. However, as per WP:IGNORE, strict adherence to the rules shouldn't get in the way of creating the encyclopedia. The WP:BURDEN policy is ultimately there to stop nonsense being presented as fact, and to serve as a trump-card against those who persist in adding such nonsense. Given that the content is uncontentious (I assure you, that railway station exists), the most sensible way to proceed is probably to add "citation needed" tags, and then work on filling them in with appropriate references. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 13:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Budbrooke. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080621062206/http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/388526D144C14FFB80256C400055CC2B to http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/388526D144C14FFB80256C400055CC2B

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)