Talk:Aldershot

message: This article has been de-tagged as requiring cleanup, but as far as I can see it is still very badly written and ungrammatical.  Furthermore, several sections, especially the 'Shopping' section, contain numerous unsourced POV statements. I have reapplied tags as appropriate. DWaterson 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup (again) and NPOV

message: I have to agree with DWaterson here. It should be noted that Wikipedia is not interested in truth, Wikipedia is interested in verifiability. Thus, you cannot say things like, "the Rotten Borough of Rushmoor" or "At night Aldershot town centre becomes a war zone" unless a verifiable and reliable source has already made those statements. Without specific citations from the aforementioned reliable sources, the information should be removed immediately. The burden of proof is on those seeking to include the information, not on those seeking to remove it per WP:V. I find the behavior of the anonymous sock puppets here rather disturbing. Get a user account, follow our policies of no orginial research and WP:V and people will respect you much more, and will even help to incorporate the information you seek. --Hetar 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd Opinion 

message: The version of "Shopping in Aldershot" by 131.227.76.238 is intersting and well-written, but is unbalanced and not supported by citation to reliable sources. For example, "All the local councillors seem capable of, is wringing their hands and shedding crocodile tears, (while collecting their expences)." This should appear in an encyclopedia only as an attributed quote, and should be balanced by a countervailing opinion. The version by DWaterson, while rather spare, is more nearly what an encyclopedia article should be. Tom Harrison Talk 19:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note, I didn't write the current version; I just reverted to the last version I considered acceptably encyclopaedic. I agree that some of the anonymous editor's comments were interesting, but, as you say, are not supported adequately. That was why, in my comment of 13:25, 12 May 2006, I suggested a thorough rewrite could bring the text into a more acceptable format. Thanks for the 3rd/4th opinons though :) DWaterson 19:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th opinion 

message: I've removed this section as its a bit messy and far from complete. For anyone wnating to expand it, I've put it on a subpage /Memorials for development. --Robdurbar 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Memorials

message: In an attempt to resolve this dispute, I have substantially rewritten several sections and done a general tidy up. I have tried to incorporate several parts of the disputed text, although there wasn't a lot that was usable. This was because unfortunately, after some quick research, it appeared that a substantial proportion of the text was a potential copyvio (or at least a dubious rehash) of ((link to Parkins blacklisted site removed  can be found at wwwdotheurekadotclaradotnet/surrey-hants/ald-shot.htm]. That website appears to contain mainly a highly POV rant about the supposed evils of Rushmoor borough council, so I do not see that we can use it reliably even as a source. However, if someone could flesh out the 'history' section and provide some reliable citations for the 'shopping' section, that would much improve the article. DWaterson 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its looking tider already. It really needs more content though - is it worthy of a stub tag, do you think? --Robdurbar 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite and cleanup

message: I have many credible News paper articles, in addition to photos, even video I could/would like to add. Some aspects of this place are not all bad I must say. Some bits were to be very good. But some nasty aspects of this town though are worthy of description to be said about it, that IS the way it is. Fact and Verifiable.  and if any discussion takes place about it they must also be said for an honest and balanced view. 
Of course behind the negative stuff and which IS NOT just pov are those that have and do administer it. This town HAS changed RADICALLY in one hundred years. Even there own verifiable publications acknowledge it. 
So which bits should Wiki portray. Which year has the bits in YOU feel should be there? Otherwise YOU are doing Wiki the disservice by not allowing the good and the bad to be shown. Or giving anyone the chance to add content if you don’t like it. Does that mean it not there for Christ's sake! Or only allowing crap like "it was built on heath land to serve the British army" which isn’t realy going to fob off anyone that reads it, is it??? Are comments like these verifiable, or your guess from reading it somewhere.  Or is it the way it is now, with many of its buildings derelict or demolished, empty run down shops, drunken drug laden louts rampaging through the streets, urban warriors that torment and intimidate. This IS all verifiable. This IS Aldershot NOW But then how do you pretend this is not so? By deleting one photo showing a street scene. By deleting the mention of its most recent memorial, AND a picture. By adding pointless references that you think ARE verifiable facts.
I'm afraid if the panic deletions of content of this one page before anyone gets a chance to complete it, are an example of Wikipedia then it has failed. Either they (waterson) were put up to it or are just over opinionated pricks that know no better (sorry no other term fits) .
And as far as I'm concerned, unless I see a BALANCED view of the town, the way it REALY is, warts an all, then I and others will make sure that is made clear to all your pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clever dicky (talk • contribs) 
:I agree - we should show the good and the bad. I've come to this fairly late so I don't know about the images that have been removed. If you have sources - does the local newspaper have a webpage you can link to? If not, you could put in additions. The memorials section hasn't been deleted - if you read above, I've put it on a subpage for development till its ready. That way it can be worked on till its complete.
I agree that the entire article is unsourced and needs verification, including the heathland romanticization. --Robdurbar 07:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content? Where's the point. 

message: I'm sorry, but I've reverted the changes for now. I do think that the things you are saying could be included in the article but at the moment your edits are not neutral. They are romanticizing a none existent past and represent one view of how the town has changed. This is a view worth representing, but in a paragraphy or two. I'd do it now myself but its 1am and I'm knackered. --Robdurbar 00:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well I've merged the two but statements such as:
"But unlike many towns, part of Aldershot’s inheritance has been based upon the evening economy of bars, pubs, and the entertainment of soldiers for many years. However, looking back at the effects of lost retail that reputation bought, and during the low times of the eighties when consumers began to choose where to shop. Is it any wonder? But like many towns now with local and national government supported all night 24hr drinking, what contribution has the reputation of the evening trade really cost this once great Victorian town?"
are just unacceptable. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge. Factors such as 24hr drinking etc. are seen as good things by some people. This is just opinion. --Robdurbar 09:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Clever Dickey, in response to your question: "Where are your own genuine 'positive' contributions"? Since you don't seem to appreciate clean up editing, I've added two sections, happy? May the article now continue to grow as an encyclopedic article. David D. (Talk) 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the topic would be an interesting read but it fails the 'no original research' policy (WP:OR) that is used as a guideline for writing articles in wikipedia.  On the otherhand, if you know of a similar article that has been written and published by a reputable publisher, then you can cite it and summarise the article. David D. (Talk) 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: People involved in this debate might be interested in going to the - the individual involved is the same.  Gsd2000 16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are your own genuine 'positive' contributions?

message: Is lack of local knowledge a prerequisite to edit this page? It would seem so from the behaviour of the wikithugs who are active here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.17.22 (talk • contribs) 
:Please read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks --Charlesknight 16:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith, please sign your posts otherwise it is impossible to track the conversations. With regard to local knowledge, being a resident is not enough (see WP:OR).  The article needs to be well sourced (see WP:RS). Within those guidelines you can write any balanced contribution to the article.  What you wrote before was unsourced and from one perspective only. Once does not need to be from the town to write an encyclopedic article.  In fact, in may be preferable to NOT live there to get a more objective arrticle. I hope this helps you with respect to future additions.  First step is find some good sources.  Then we can work on the balance. This is a serious encyclopedia and the people reverting your edits are not wikithugs.  They do recognise, however, POV content.  David D. (Talk) 15:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: lack of local knowledge

message: Hi, me again.
Ive just discovered how to 'sign' my name just by doing this ~ ~ ~ ~ cool!
Perhaps i wont be accused of being somebody else now.
Clever dicky 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason people hit the delete button is not about fairness, it's about adhering to the standards of WP.  Your contribution may not have been out of place in a Lonely Planet travel guidebook, but that is not what Wikipedia is - it's an encyclopaedia of fact.  Your latest contribution is full of weasel words (such as "In 2000 it was speculated that...") and opinions (such as "It will take more than ‘off price shopping’ to turn back the clock.").  Gsd2000 11:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITs ME 

message: It would seem WP standards are an excuse for jumped up little turds that know, and most likely DO, sod all with their sad pathetic little lives. 
Hope your not offended if this includes YOU. 
Trouble is content might be factual and reproducible if only you could be bothered to ask or LOOK. But then that might mean sliding your fat ass off the floor and finding things out for yourself. Clearly others coments and from whats written and been deleted your like many a freak that gets off jacking others.
In fact it might surprise you to learn that many of these 'quotes' were just that from local papers printed by reputable journalists. Not to mention fact based discussions between people who live in the town. 
Does that include YOU ????????????
If not then Swivel. 
Clever dicky 16:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are quotes then that should be made clear.  As it was there was nothing to indicate that they were quotes, which makes it plagiarism.  If they were printed in a local newspaper please cite the source using footnotes.  This is not something personal against you, or somebody disagreeing with what you have written, it is a case of having to verify that it is factual.  Please stop being distruptive. Thanks, Joe D (t) 16:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's see, you say: " if only you could be bothered to ask or LOOK. But then that might mean sliding your fat ass off the floor and finding things out for yourself. ".  Clearly you need to read up on the wikipedia policy of no original research.  It is why little of your content is acceptable for this encyclopedia. David D. (Talk) 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another weasel crawls from the rot

message: User , who is probably Keith Parkin, has now been blocked for pulling this stunt (moved Aldershot to Aldershot_as_only_a_few_might_see_it) to make his wikipoint. Clever dicky, if you bring yet another sockpuppet to disrupt this page you can expect them to be banned too.  Either edit following the policies layed out by wikipedia, for you the ones that are most relevant include WP:CIVIL, WP:RS, WP:WEASEL and WP:OR, or expect more bans. David D. (Talk) 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: page move

message: Is there a good reason to have this list of people on a separate page? It is not exactly a long list and seems to be too trivial to have a list of its own. David D. (Talk) 17:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous people

message: I removed the following line from the article 
::"It was secretly agreed in Royal circles that the statue would not be removed during the Duke's lifetime, so as not to offend him."
Due to the following concerns from an IP contributor.
:The above statment is unclarified and possibly false.  It is only word of mouth at best. The following text is from http://www3.hants.gov.uk An offical government website that clearly states it was moved due to congestion at its original site and by request from the prince of wales.
:"By the time of Wellington's death in 1852 the public had become used to the sight of the statue and in deference to the great Duke's memory no further attempt was made to have it moved for the next thirty years. But by 1882 traffic congestion around Hyde Park Corner had become so intense that a proposal was made to demolish the Arch to make way for road widening. But public sentiment was opposed to such destruction and in January 1883 the Prince of Wales wrote to the Prime Minister, Gladstone, recommending the removal of the Arch to a new position at the top of Constitution Hill. "As regard the old colossal statue of the Duke", he wrote, "I would suggest that it should not be broken up but removed to Aldershot where it will be highly valued by the Army".
:When the statue was taken down and the Arch moved to its new position, the statue was left abandoned in a corner of Green Park for another year while various possible sites were considered including Chelsea Hospital, Horse Guards, Portsmouth, Wellington College and St James's Park. These were all rejected and at last a resolution of both Houses of Parliament gave permission for it to be moved to Aldershot. 
The above source might be useful to add back to the article. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: hearsay with respect to wellington

message: As someone who was born in Aldershot in 1979 and lived there until 2001, I agree that this article could benefit from more detail regarding the town's transition through recent history. I would hope that further research could explore some of the following topics, and perhaps answer some of my own questions surrounding them: 
* The opening of Tesco in the early 1990s, and factual sources that confirm whether or not this did result in a decline of the town's economy 
* The closure of theatres and cinemas. I've been told that there were once at least three cinemas, the last of which I recall closing in the early 2000s. 
* The development of the Wellington Centre. In the early 1990s there was a newly-opened section that had an open-planned layout of shops, including a pet store and an arcade. I believe the shops were closed down and the whole area renovated, replacing it with a sports retail outlet
* A significant rise in Nepalese population and businesses
* New plans for the town, rumoured to be on the same land on which the Alexandra Surgery stood until recent closure 
I haven't added any of this content myself due to lack of factual knowledge and source information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vick1979 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more factual information, please! 

message: Aldershot is a clean place. Not too many crimes. Experiences I would describe as enjoyable and everything is walkable. River's and lakes what a beautiful view what else do you ask for? Peace and nature. Except from the screaming boys. There is even a stream called the Blackwater Stream and if you go across that there is a hill full of ducks and across another lake and some cars. The night is the time to stay at home and relax with the telly on and birds go past slowly making noises. In a distance you can see the deep blue sky and the cars stopping. Nothing being disturbed. Silence. More silence. Relaxation. Round 10pm the lights turn on and everything goes dark. If I were you I would keep away from the dogs. The barking can be very disturbing especially at night. When your outside you feel the breeze smash into your face and it makes you feel really comfortable. In spring all the flowers grow and there is lot of blossoms falling all over you like rain its magical. When you go to town there are lots of people. Every season there is different styles and dressing. Beauty to your eyes. Emotion for others and not themselves. If you decide to come there will be tours available. Anything is walkable in Aldershot and new things are created and happen everyday.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifitops123 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living area's