Talk:Bristol Urban Culture

message: I started this page and added all content to date. Any comments, changes etc, please put here Confusedmiked 05:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

message: Hi. I am user:82.45.15.247. 
I have edited the "bristol urban culture" post so that it is a little more consistent with reality. I know this is unpopular, but there you go. I am however happy for my own edit to be edited on grounds of not wanting to cause offence, but this wholesale roll-back of changes has to stop. 
The fact is that Bristol and it's "urban culture" does have another, less salubrious side to it, and I am not happy to see this whitewashed out of existance by self-serving, self-congratulatory nonsense. Bristol Indymedia in particular seem to be fond of censoring facts and points of view they don't like while spamming themselves everywhere and covering up less pleasant episodes in their history. 
In general the posted article seems to be very much something for the tourists, the slummers, and the over thirty-fives. Again, I don't mince words, so I'm happy to have my somewhat acerbic comments moderated but not censored wholesale. I have in fact made several changes to this edit, could someone actually check it out this time rather than just silence other viewpoints? 
Also for the record: I was not asserting that Banky's fans were blind, I was asserting that his CRITICS must be visually impaired. 
Cheers
user:82.45.15.247
:*I don't have much to say about it. All I know is that there have been numerous reverts concerning your edits, everytime for POV pushing. I wouldn't be surprised if a RfC is started over this. "I was asserting that his CRITICS must be visually impaired." That statement in itself is bias and very POV. You might consider a rewrite. Frankly, I would suggest removing your edits altogether and moving on to other topics. - R Lee E  (talk, contribs) 04:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
:*I've made some edits to the Indymedia section; imho user:82.45.15.247's critique would be great material for a blog, but doesn't fit with Wikipedia. Rather than getting stuck in an edit/revert cycle, let's try finding external resources to cite as backup for claims of controversy? Linking the Register's article is a start in that direction. If user:82.45.15.247 had a blog or external Web site where the POV attitude could be unconstrained, it'd seem reasonable to cite that from the article. FWIW, in my (non-insider) experience of Bristol Indymedia, they've done a good job with limited resources. Other bits of the article allude to various social problems in bristol; that'd be worth dealing with separately in another article, I think.
DanBri
===== OK, have changed =====
Ok, have changed.
===== links added to =====
:I've removed a load of stuff about Indymedia as it just read like an advert for the website. In addition, I think it would be better if stories about Indymedia weren't using Indymedia as a constant reference source, as it seems a little unreliable to do so. Dancarney 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi. 

message: :I've removed a load of stuff about Indymedia as it just read like an advert for the website. In addition, I think it would be better if stories about Indymedia weren't using Indymedia as a constant reference source, as it seems a little unreliable to do so. Dancarney 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links added to 

message: Wikipedia is not a free advert for the cultural goings-on on of Bristol (Paulo Fontaine 02:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising

message: This article should be merged into more appropriate articles and deleted. Significant organizations or people mentioned in this article should probably be merged with Bristol. Music related information should be merged with Bristol Sound/Trip hop. Other useful information might otherwise go to wikitravel. Kellen T 12:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and delete