Talk:Etchingham

Tidied up images and removed superfluous links. The philatelic connection could be condensed and the article need some proper source citations. The acknowledgements and links sections need some more work. ww2censor 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etchingham Stores

172.203.242.57 removed Reference link to Etchingham Stores on the basis that it is commercial.

If you read the information relating to the Etchingham Stores nyou will find it is a community owned 'Not for profit' enterprtise, run by the community for the benefit of the community. Link re-instated. ColinBoylett 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference link concerned, gives more detail to go with the section giving details of the saving of the shop. ColinBoylett 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Etchingham Community Stores in the references is the citation required to support the detail in the article. As the shop is a community owned shop run as a Not For Profit organisation, I cannot see any problem with the link being in the item. Some users keep removing this link, presumably treating it as a link to a commercial business, which it is not. ColinBoylett 11:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I have reverted an edit that removed the references. I don't understand what this was intended to do. I presume it wasn't vandalism, but for the moment I've reverted it. Rjm at sleepers 06:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references have been removed again. What is this about? Rjm at sleepers 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone again, without explanation. Rjm at sleepers 07:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put the references back in again. ColinBoylett 14:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that both the users deleting the references have only been editing for two days from those IP addresses, i have reverted several other external links they have removed from other village pages. ColinBoylett 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten minutes after I put the references back they had been removed again, now back in place. ColinBoylett 15:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

I guess 172.189.45.137 didn't like my changes. However, the current version has a lot of white space. Surely this is not good style. Rjm at sleepers 08:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 172.189.45.137 is probably the same person that regularly deletes items from this page and other local pages, working on a computer that frequently changes the IP address, I notice it happened a lot more during the school holidays (coincidence??)ColinBoylett 11:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One question for Rjm at sleepers why have you removed so much of the content from some of the articles, particularly the philatelic item?ColinBoylett 11:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't deliberately remove anything from the philatelic item. I may have failed to reinstate it after the anonymous editor removed it. Should we go back to an earlier edit and work from that? Rjm at sleepers 13:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the easiest way would be to go back to an earlier version and 'copy & paste' the content from there.ColinBoylett 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]