Talk:Woodcote Park

More extensive history is detailed here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230408071350/https://eehe.org.uk/?p=29903 Polyamorph (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shame it's not a reliable source, and you seem to have based quite a lot of the article on it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: please don't follow me if you can't be civil.Polyamorph (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have pinged the wrong person. Firstly, I have not followed you (I’ve edited this page a while ago and it’s been on my watchlist since I worked the Epsom Riot article); secondly, there is nothing uncivil in what I have written: saying that you have used an unreliable source in your expansion of the article isn’t uncivil. - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Nick Moyes because you've followed me here and he is aware of the situation. Polyamorph (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not "followed you here". As I have already explained, this article (which I have edited before) is on my watchlist and has been so for at least the last three years. Please don't accuse me of things I have not done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We were in dispute. That was resolved. I started editing this page substantially and you have decided to undo some of my edits, relating to our earlier dispute, and complain about my sourcing. That is not conducive to a friendly and collaborative environment and I frankly consider this harassment. Please stop. Polyamorph (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harassment. For the third time, this has been on my watchlist for several years. I suggest you stop accusing me of breaching the WP:HARRASSMENT policy. If you honestly think that's the case, take it to ANI. At the moment you are unsubstantiated and uncivil accusations. The only thing I have reverted of yours relates to the name of the place, and that's with good reason. At the moment you use the name without any context about what it is and where or when it was introduced, and that's not great. Readers are going to wonder what the name refers to as it hasn't been introduced or referred to before you drop it in without explanation.

As to the sourcing, you are using an unreliable source. Sorry you don't like hearing that, but I suggest you read WP:RELIABLESOURCE.

I will step away from this article for a week or so, but both the naming problem and the souring will need to be addressed in the interim. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an unreliable source, it is an online resource published by history experts at Bourne Hall, a library in Ewell. They do their best to ensure high accuracy of content and have access to a vast archive.

Regarding the name, the timeline is not entirely clear as to when any "renaming" took place - its not possible to say exactly when it was renamed. If my prose is clumsy, that can be addressed, but I am not comfortable saying it was renamed if at that stage in history it was actually still only a small section of the main camp.

I'll assume good faith and withdraw my harassment accusations, with apologies. Please try to collaborate constructively in the future, ask here for clarification before making unilateral changes, as I have thought carefully about the prose as it is written (not saying it is remotely perfect).Polyamorph (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s unreliable. It’s a volunteer’s local history society, which is the equivalent to a fan site. It doesn’t pass WP:UGC. And when I return in a week or so, I will continue to make WP:BOLD edits, not ask anyone’s permission beforehand, and that includes correcting the errors that are in the article, including relating to the name of the hospital and unreliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]