Talk:Sutton-in-Ashfield

message: I feel this article needs a bit more fleshing out, although it may be a small town, I'm pretty there's a lot more here than meets the eye. I'm sure the local library have a couple of books to help me. Is there anyone else who lives in the area willing to help me? - Ferretgames 13:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um' I'm looking at the Pretty Polly factory right now and I can assure you that it's pretty dead. The name got bought by someone else. Factory after factory is closing down over here, the Sutton textiles industry is all but dead at the moment I'm afraid. And I helped do up Brierley when I was about 15, but it didn't last very long, took it a few months to turn into Brierley Tip again, so that's useless. - Ferret 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonetheless hosiery is an important feature of the town's history, and Brierley Forest Park is a notable attraction within the town, even if you're not entirely impressed with it.
JamesOwen 19:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh honestly, ASDA is a more notable attraction than Brierley Tip. - Ferret 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sutton-in-Ashfield. 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/20090815064436/http://www.greenflagaward.org.uk/winners/east-midlands/ to http://www.greenflagaward.org.uk/winners/east-midlands/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I deleted the bio bit about Jeremiah Brandreth. The article is about the town, not him. He still appears in the article's Notable People list which takes readers to an article about him, Jeremiah Brandreth. Like quite a bit of the article, the quality of the paragraph was poor. It said he was a "former stock maker". He wasn't -- he manufactured hosiery. It said he "was the leader of the Pentrich Revolution." He was one of several leaders, not the leader.  It said he worked for the Home Office so "therefore Jeremiah was caught". Why? It said he was sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. He was hanged and beheaded, not drawn and quartered, so saying what actualiy transpired is far for encyclopedic than mentioning a sentence containing two specifics which were never carried out. The PM of the day is mentioned without saying why.  Moriori (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted paragraph

message: I have restored the banner tag  at Sutton in Ashfield which was deleted by  a couple of hours after being added on 5 November, as the following sections "Teversal area", "Teversal and Teversal Manor", "Skegby Old Manor House", "Skegby Heritage Trail", "Silverhill Woods", "Teversal and Skegby Trails" should be at other articles, as they are not within Sutton in Ashfield. Wikipedia has dedicated articles for these geograhical areas - Skegby, Teversal, Teversal Manor.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-adding {{tl|overly detailed}} 

message: The article contains an image of Lindley's Mill. The file description says it has a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. But it has been uploaded from the council website which has a notice on it stating © Ashfield District Council 2020.  , as the uploader can you show where the council has approved share alike? (Incidentally, the file has the incorrect name of Lindsey's Mill.) Moriori (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright status 

message: JSimons1978 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed sockpuppet of banned user. --Yamla (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020 

message: There have been a large number of edits to this article in recent weeks by several WP:SPA accounts (one editor and several socks), all of which are now blocked. That leaves the question of what should be done to the article itself. I tentatively suggest a wholesale revert to , not because it is by me but because it takes us back to before the disruptive editing began. It is far from perfect, and would need a good deal of additional work to make it encyclopaedic. , all of whom have in one way or another tried to keep this mess under control, for any comment they might have. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I don't think anyone added any substantial content in the large number of versions (over 500!) by anyone else, most of it just seems to be trying to sort out the problems with the content Sutton12 added so I think we're done. I wouldn't be surprised if Sutton does come back under a 5th account though. Crouch, Swale (talk)  22:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is already protected against edits by new and unregistered users, and I have been coming back every so often to check on it but I hadn't noticed anything really untoward. I did not think that DavidAshfield1 was a sock of Sutton12/Simpson132, although I guessed there must be some connection between them. Sutton12 was virtually illiterate as well as deficient in understanding, and DavidAshfield1 seemed quite sensible (for a while). I wonder if he just created the account, used it for long enough to achieve credibility and then handed it back to Sutton12. Deb (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

text: PS. Happy to revert to the version you suggested. Deb (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  just revert back to wherever you want, I'd be inclined to revert back to the pre Sutton version and merge any appropriate content. To be quite honest given the SPI and you're protection I didn't understand why you didn't immediately think David was a sock, I did even though I'm usually not good at working out who socks are but I can now see what you meant about communication etc. Crouch, Swale (talk)  08:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done; I should have realised. I took it that he was someone better-educated that Sutton12 had approached for help in getting the material corrected and published, and that would have been okay with me. But I see that his edits quickly deteriorated and I should have picked up on that straight away. Deb (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

text: By all means, revert it back- I have doubts about the referencing for starters. The bits I worked on were either flat out wrong,(misreading sources?) or had sources that did not fully support the statements made (although in some cases appeared in non RS hobby webpages). It makes it difficult to trust anything referenced to an offline source. At any rate, it has resulted in a mixture of trivia, OR and possible plain errors that makes it near impossible to find sources to properly back up what is there now. Curdle (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've done that. We can start again. Perhaps some of the intermediate content can be restored after being fully checked and translated into decent English. Deb (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Deb! For what it's worth, I was sure David must be a sock, but when I compared style, edits, edit summaries etc with Sutton's I couldn't see enough similarity to justify an SPI report. It's easier to be wrong than right! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Blimey nearly 600 versions between you're revert and the 1st edit. The difference is only a bit of the school text removed. Crouch, Swale (talk)  19:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted, agreed, I was just sitting on the situation hoping that some crossover (past chat) between usernames would occur after seeing Deb's welcome message, and I actually drafted a DM but didn't send; I regularly dropped-in minor corrections to confirm I was lurking, also noted the same fixation on the smaller component parts of the Ashfield area which is highly-poignant in itself, but noted the geographical expansion towards Hucknall and Newark. I cringe whenever I see multiple mobile edits (that's because I don't have a clue about editing using Android or iOS without a keyboard) .--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to this article 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion