Talk:London Borough of Camden/Archive 1

message: Original destructive editing by used kbthompson is discussed above. For remainder see below.Paxsilvestris 16:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I added three maintenance tags to the article (check history). Kbthompson 09:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Attempts were made (on this page) to encourage the editor to correct their edits  in respect of WP:Policy. This was not done, if the editor wants to develop an acceptable article on these subjects, that should be done in their Sandbox, not on the main article page. Subsequently, another editor decided that much of the content of the edits conflicted with WP:LIVING, and rightly removed them. This is not a guideline, or something that is negotiable. It is an official policy. Kbthompson 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The text (which has been re-added) contains libelous material and (specifically relating to the housing section) is anachronistic, alleging the council was responsible for decisions made up to 20 years before its inception. It is a wholly unbalanced and random collection of information and not at all a succinct summary, which is what this this article should be. MRSC • Talk 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Destructive editing

message: I have added a combined factual accuracy/neutrality warning to this page.  I personally have no strong feelings regarding this article, but it is apparent that the contents of this article are disputed and that much of the article lacks proper references.  Do not remove the warning until consensus is reached regarding the content of the article.  Dr. Submillimeter 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article contains multiple "citation needed" tags.  That is sufficient to warrant the "factual accuracy" tag.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy/neutrality warning 

message: Isn't it extraordinary how posting a simple list of proven corruption at London Borough of Camden has caused such a storm!  Check the original list - references. They are all beyond dispute.
Personal attack by  removed. Uncle G 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could all interested parties please note this is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a piece of investigative journalism. Please take some time to read about the aims of the project, which will hopefully explain why these additions are unsuitable for this article. MRSC • Talk 17:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is still a random and unbalanced collection of information and contains large sections which need to be removed. MRSC • Talk 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM and POLITICAL EDITING 

message: Is corruption and information about the quality of governance information that should be included in an assessment of democratic institutions?  Should quality/assessments of institutions be included in an encyclopaedia, i.e material from Ofsted, Audit Commission etc?  If so, then why?  If not, then why not? Paxsilvestris 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption and Scandals/Governance 

message: Here are the links that were added to the range of claims about Camden Council. Some of these might be very useful to constructing a balanced article (instead of an "attack piece"), although some will not be suitable for WP:A policy, others appear to be broken. MRSC • Talk 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Various links