Wikipedia

Talk:Erith

Latest comment: 12 days ago by 2A02:8084:F1BE:C780:4554:43DB:1898:3DA in topic Lead
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Erith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Erith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Erith. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Notable residents

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Over the next couple of weeks I'm going to try to rationalise the lists of notable residents of Bexley towns. Each one currently has a long and unsourced lists of people who might have gone to school there, may anecdotally have been seen in the area, may be from a neighbouring town etc. (see Sidcup for example). Also, many people were born in, say, Bexleyheath but grew up in, say, Welling. Meanwhile the article List of people from Bexley is woefully underpopulated. So I'm going to try to migrate most of the lists to there as a central list (with fully explanation of their local connection and history etc), add them to the articles about their secondary schools if the sources back that up, and only leave people on the list in articles about the specific towns if the source clearly states that they lived in that place. (see current list at Bexleyheath for an example). This should make the info more reliable, easier to check, and easier to understand. Any comments, objections, suggestions? Jdcooper (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

How do you define Towns? Why exclude Villages and Hamlets? — Preceding unsigned
I don't exclude them. If the village or hamlet (or more accurately in the case of this area, neighbourhood) has a wikipedia article and there is a source pinning a famous resident to that place, then it's all good. Jdcooper (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Domesday contradiction

edit

This article claimed that, "Erith passed into the possession of Bishop Odo and is mentioned in the Domesday Survey", but provided no evidence.

The contradiction is Local Government asserting that: the most populated area was by the river at Lessness. This area probably included Erith which is not mentioned in Domesday.

Source: http://www.bexley.gov.uk/article/10263/The-Bexley-Area-in-the-Domesday-Book

I have modified the sentences to remove the contradiction. More generally, the article does not identify the earliest mention of Erith.

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Erith. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Erith. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply


Lead

edit
Latest comment: 12 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Historically part of Kent, it was absorbed into Greater London in 1965 and today forms part of the London Borough of Bexley. It seems to be a location specific standard sentence being used across Greater London articles and is not someone's personal creation, but rather than bring this up at that project talk page, I'll mention it here. My views are that the sentence is not ideal, is confusing, misleading, and factually incorrect. Historically part of Kent implies it is no longer part of Kent, which is wrong. It's a rather clumsy way of trying to say that Erith is in the historic county of Kent, as lead guidelines advise. it was absorbed into Greater London in 1965 is misleading because GL of the 1965 act did not exist to do any absorbing, and all GL did take over was local government responsibility. This sort of wording is hardly encyclopedic. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Within the boundaries of the historic county of Kent, it has formed part of the London Borough of Bexley since 1965 is far better. It does not imply that Erith is no longer a part of any form of Kent, and no mention is made of Greater London at all, or of absorbing. Roger 7 Roger (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Comment on my deletion a few days ago that has been reverted and then re-reverted I judged the comments by an IP with only one previous edit (bot reverted as vandalism) to be a personal attack on me rather than an opposing opinion written in an aggressive style. For that reason I deleted it, which is allowed under talk page guidelines. I seem to be honoured with occasional but ongoing attention on these SE London wiki pages, amounting IMO to a campaign, that began a few years back. This includes a series of socks that have tried to pretend they are me, using similar user names, that have been removed after first causing some confusion and disruption. This IP edit that I removed seems to be part of that ongoing campaign. I hope it goes without saying that I never remove opinions I do not like. In fact, I welcome constructive opinion on this historic county topic especially because there seems to be very little of it beyond "Yes it is: no it isn't" This deleted comment was, IMO, a personal attack, not an opinion. Whatever, all very amusing, until it enters the realm of blatant pointless insults. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to hear that, Roger. I agree, and that's why I reverted myself. I suppose Wikipedia draws a lot of people to curiously edit their hometowns' pages, and if you are the one reverting inappropriate edits you will bring yourself to their attention. Jdcooper (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Update I have just realised that the edits in question were not actually by me, but were in fact by two socks doing exactly what I said above - trying to confuse by pretending they were me. Well, if they fooled me and caused confusion and time wasting all round then the socks certainly seem to have achieved their aim! FTAOD, I am Roger 8, not Roger 9 or Roger 7!
@Roger 8 Roger: "I hope it goes without saying that I never remove opinions I do not like."
Bluebird207 here, editing at an IP address - having not edited under that username since retiring at the end of 2018. (Or attempting to retire, anyway. I've been tempted back into editing plenty of times since, but at IP addresses and under different usernames - because when I stopped editing as Bluebird207, I intentionally changed my password to something I'd never remember in a million years.)
So, Roger 8 Roger, if another editor harshly criticised YOU for YOUR edits, and called YOUR edits "distressing" or some other very negative adjective, you would NOT delete this - no matter whether that editor was telling the truth or lying, no matter how justified that editor's words were if they WERE telling the truth, and no matter how angry and upset that editor's words made you?
Sorry, but I disagree with this. Roger 8 Roger, you made me very, VERY angry when you called my edits to this article in 2018 "distressing" - ESPECIALLY when you thanked me for these edits at the same time, AND you didn't sound sarcastic when thanking me. Like, HOW THE HELL can someone explicitly disagree so strongly with someone else's edits, AND at the same time thank that someone else for those edits without being sarcastic? As far as I'm concerned, that makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. IMHO, it's not unlike a Labour supporter thanking the Tories for everything they've done the last fourteen years, without any sarcasm, before tearing into them. It makes absolutely no sense - and Roger 8 Roger, I can't fathom how YOU would think it makes sense to explicitly disagree so strongly with someone else's edits AND thank them for those edits at the same time.
I also continue to disagree with your choice of words to describe my edits to this article. Yes, six years on, I still disagree. What I DON'T disagree with - indeed, what EVERYONE can agree with - is the fact that you were absolutely entitled to explicitly disagree with my edits, if you felt you had to do that. And obviously, you DID feel you had to explicitly disagree with my edits. But you know, Roger 8 Roger, there was MORE THAN ONE way in which you could express that disagreement. You could have referred to me in the third person rather than the second, for instance (he/him/his, or if you didn't know my gender, they/them/their - both as opposed to you/your), and perhaps a bit more to the point, you could have NOT said "thank you", and you could have used FAR LESS negative words than "distressing".
And even if somehow you WERE distressed by my edits (and if you were, well I'm sorry, but you did NOT need to be THAT dramatic), you really, REALLY should have kept this to yourself instead of explicitly stating it here on this talk page. Yes, it is better to tell the truth than to lie - again, no-one can disagree with that - but SURELY you MUST know, Roger 8 Roger, that sometimes you are better off keeping some bits of the truth to yourself, rather than state each and every bit of the truth each and every time. If, for instance, someone dyed their hair and you hated their new hair colour, much preferring their old one, would you tell that person "Your new hair colour is distressing to see"? You WOULD be telling the truth, but chances are you would make that person very upset, because they don't see how dyeing their hair could cause such problems (and they quite like their new hair colour, too).
However great your distress really was, Roger 8 Roger, you should have kept it to yourself. You did not, and as a result, you made me very, VERY angry.
Do you want to know JUST how angry you made me?
Obviously, I deleted your words on this talk page (which you then put back), and I left messages on your personal talk page.
But that was not all. Oh no. At a number of the IP addresses I've posted at since the end of 2018, I found ways to badger and harass you, on some of the other articles you've edited and on your personal talk page as well. That obviously meant stalking you, too.
And finally, you mention that someone pretended to be you, using similar usernames. Well, guess what? That was me.
Yes, I, Bluebird207, was Roger 7 Roger AND Roger 9 Roger. AND I was Roger 3 Roger as well, editing articles on places in Greater Manchester to say that they were either "within the boundaries of the historic county of Lancashire" or "within the boundaries of the historic county of Cheshire".
Yes, Roger 8 Roger, I pretended to be you with those three usernames, differing from yours only in the digit.
All this was the result of how angry you made me. You can imagine JUST how angry, can't you? If not Incredible Hulk angry, then close enough.
I'm not going to bother apologising for any of this, because I know it's not going to come across as sincere and it'll almost certainly not be accepted in any case. And Roger 8 Roger, I'm sure YOU will never apologise for calling my edits "distressing", so I'm not going to ask you to.
I've actually got some opinions of my own here which I am NOT going to keep to myself. Yes, I feel I SHOULD state these opinions, and I do NOT care if these opinions upset others.
First of all, Roger 8 Roger, I think you are one of those people who are TOO devoted to Wikipedia, who spend that bit too much time editing it, and who take it far more seriously than they really need to. You've made, what, fifteen thousand edits in barely ten years? And you seem to have really immersed yourself in the rules, going by some of your edit summaries (though you STILL don't bother to reduce the size of your personal talk page, by deleting or archiving years-old discussions that are no longer active).
You DO have a life away from Wikipedia, don't you? My advice to you, Roger 8 Roger: spend a bit more time living THAT particular life. In other words, spend LESS time on Wikipedia.
I know I myself have spent a lot of time editing Wikipedia, one way or another - but after fifteen years I've finally come to realise, is it worth it really? Wikipedia is NEVER going to be perfect or complete in any way, and it's never, EVER going to be the case that EVERYONE obeys every single one of the many, MANY rules without taking even the slightest step out of line. How CAN that ever be the case when Wikipedia has quite a lot in common with traditional social media (Facebook, Twitter/X, etc.), including sharing some VERY big cons? (Arguably it's even easier to be a nuisance on Wikipedia than it is on traditional social media, because you DON'T need a password or an email address, or even a username - all you need is to be at an IP range that isn't blocked, and away you go.) Also, the "awards" for being good at editing Wikipedia, and for editing it often enough - these aren't TANGIBLE awards like the Oscars or the Grammys, or Guinness World Records certificates, or even "employee of the month" awards in the workplace, are they? So is editing Wikipedia really THAT much rewarding at the end of the day? Do the pros of editing it outweigh the cons THAT much?
So I really think you should spend less time on Wikipedia, Roger 8 Roger, and more time living your non-Wikipedia life. And @Jdcooper: I really think you should do the same too. You seem to be just as devoted to Wikipedia as Roger 8 Roger is - twenty-seven thousand edits in nineteen years, and greatly immersed in the rules too. Indeed, you and Roger 8 Roger seem to be buddies, taking each other's side in any situation - even when either or both of you do and say things that are not really justified, like using very negative words like "distressing" to describe someone else's edits.
Alas, you two are FAR from the only people I've come across who are too devoted to Wikipedia. I've come across people who are EVEN MORE devoted - so devoted, in fact, that it seems they could not live without it at all. For these people, editing Wikipedia seems to be a JOB or a CAREER - even though it's supposed to be voluntary as well as non-profit, isn't it? Anyway, these people have made HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of edits over the years - in some cases even MILLIONS - and they've more than just immersed themselves in the rules, they've SUBMERGED themselves in them (they certainly seem to know each and every one of them like the backs of their hands). They willingly donate to the project, they attend Wikipedia conferences, and they've met Jimmy Wales in person (and naturally, they think he's really, really great). Like, WHAT?!?
And let me tell you, Roger 8 Roger and Jdcooper: if you can get away with calling other people's edits "distressing", then these ultra, ULTRA devoted editors can get away with almost ANYTHING. (Well, obviously, there are some things that NO-ONE - not even them - can get away with, but that's beside the point.) In particular, these editors can seemingly say WHATEVER THE HELL THEY LIKE when other, less devoted editors make edits that they disagree with. And they seem to feel, too, that they should NEVER hold themselves back, and that they should ALWAYS state each and every bit of the truth.
I will name one of these editors without pinging him: Imzadi1979. He has made ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND edits in nineteen years, and I know HE has attended Wikipedia conferences over the years because he has said so AND he has said he has befriended other ultra devoted editors at these conferences. And when in 2014 I made edits on Vehicle registration plates of Michigan that he disagreed with, an unpleasant back-and-forth broke out between us in which he said to me, "If it was your desire to drive other users away from this article, you have succeeded: I am removing it from my watchlist." He may have been telling the truth to some extent - I certainly DID drive him away from that article because he hasn't edited it since - but just like with you, Roger 8 Roger, he should have kept some of the truth to himself, and he had other options when expressing his displeasure. But he DIDN'T hold back, and he DIDN'T regret the option he chose. Why? Because he KNEW VERY WELL he could get away with it: all the other ultra devoted editors would instantly take HIS side, and that is precisely what happened.
Needless to say, Imzadi1979 also made me very, very angry to the extent that I badgered, harassed, stalked and trolled him. He too will never apologise for what he said to me - he's said so himself - and none of my attempts to apologise to HIM for MY wrongdoings have ever paid off (that is, he has not explicitly accepted them), so I'm not going to bother any more. (As I said, it's arguably even easier to be a nuisance on Wikipedia than it is on Facebook, Twitter/X, etc. - and easier still if, like me, you have Asperger's and OCD, you are not good at expecting the unexpected, and sometimes you do not take it very well at all when the unexpected happens.)
But seeing Imzadi1979 and other such editors devote themselves to Wikipedia as much as they do, to treat editing it as though it's a job/career, to think - indeed, KNOW - that they can do and say almost anything they damn well please, to band together and ALWAYS take each other's side, to donate, to attend Wikipedia conferences, and to think as highly of Jimmy Wales as they do... this is why, after all these years, I've come to LAUGH at the idea of Wikipedia being anti-elitist. Maybe, MAYBE, it's anti-elitist compared to traditional encyclopedias like the Britannica... but it itself seems to have a growing elitism. This group of ultra, ULTRA devoted editors isn't particularly big, is it? Only a few thousand, when the number of all editors is in the millions? And yet it's these ultra, ULTRA devoted editors who are responsible for AT LEAST THREE-QUARTERS of all the edits that have ever been made - a proportion that DOESN'T look like it's going to decrease any time soon, as less devoted editors pack it in for one reason or another, and a smaller number of new editors come on board. And I would think that the vast majority of these ultra, ULTRA devoted editors are male, too - after all, it's well-known that the vast majority of all Wikipedia editors are male, and the proportion of female editors shows no sign of greatly increasing in the near future either.
So, a few thousand ultra, ULTRA devoted editors, most of whom are men, making three-quarters of all the edits on Wikipedia - and at the same time NOT making life all that easy for editors who aren't as devoted as they are, and NOT obviously caring if THEY discourage THESE editors (as I discouraged Imzadi1979 from editing that Michigan vehicle registration plate article). I fail to see how that is NOT elitism...
So, sum it up. I've finally come to realise that editing Wikipedia is a waste of time at the end of the day - it's never going to be perfect and complete in any way, it isn't really THAT rewarding, and it has a lot in common with traditional social media including sharing some very big cons. And yet there will always be this small group of ultra, ULTRA devoted editors who will make three edits out of four, who will think very highly of Jimmy Wales, and who will get away with ALMOST EVERYTHING they do and say - thus making a bit of a mockery of the idea of Wikipedia being anti-elitist.
As I said at the start of this very long post, I've been tempted back into editing plenty of times, responsibly and irresponsibly, since I stopped editing as Bluebird207. Even here, I've been tempted back: I've gone so far as to block Wikipedia on standard Chrome, Edge and Firefox (and to block it on my phone, too), but AFAIK there is no way of blocking it on Incognito Chrome, so I can still view and indeed edit it there (which is exactly what I'm doing). Well, I don't want to be tempted back any more. I've finally come to realise, after all these years, that I am a bad fit for Wikipedia and better off not editing it at all, and Wikipedia is a bad fit for me and would not suffer at all without me. And you know what? I've come to be quite happy about that. Happy enough, in fact, that I don't think I'd be all THAT sad if Wikipedia went belly-up...
So I am out of here - and I, really REALLY hope that THIS TIME it is for good. No more editing of ANY kind, and no more making a nuisance of myself - be it getting angry and frustrated, starting disagreements, badgering, harassing, stalking, trolling, engaging in sockpuppetry... Just basically no more wasting my time on here.
But Roger 8 Roger and Jdcooper, my thoughts about you two will not change: I DO really think that both of you should spend less time on Wikipedia, and more time living your respective non-Wikipedia lives. I didn't think much in the past about how much I enjoyed my Wikipedia life compared to my non-Wikipedia one - but I now know for sure that I enjoy my non-Wikipedia life much, MUCH more, and so I sure am going to enjoy spending more time living THAT particular life. You two might in time find that you enjoy YOUR non-Wikipedia lives more than your Wikipedia ones. As for Imzadi1979 and other ultra, ULTRA devoted editors... I guess Wikipedia IS their life, and will only stop being their life if they die or Wikipedia dies.
Finis. Sorry for all the shouting.
Bluebird207, AKA Roger 7 Roger, AKA Roger 9 Roger, AKA Roger 3 Roger, @ 2A02:8084:F1BE:C780:4554:43DB:1898:3DA (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Erith explosion

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi User:Ttocserp, can you explain what your issue is with my edits?

You wrote:

  • On 1 October 1864 a 461⁄2 ton gunpowder explosion blew out the river wall, exposing large areas of South London to flooding at high tide. A crowd of navvies and soldiers directed by a local engineer barely managed to plug the gap before high water, avoiding a calamity.

I simply incorporated this link: Embanking of the tidal Thames#The Erith explosion into the body of the paragraph, changed "barely managed" to "were able to" and "avoiding a calamity" to "preventing far more serious consequences", which is more encyclopaedic than journalistic language. I have no idea what you are talking about re: sourced/unsourced content, because I didn't change any content and you didn't provide a source for your paragraph in the first place. Jdcooper (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's ok, I see what you're doing. Revert if you like.Ttocserp 16:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Minor text edits

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Bmcln1:

To explain my edits for clarity that were clearly reverted without close reading:

  • You wrote: The early settlement was based around it, so that the centre of Erith was once west of its current location.
  • I wrote: The early settlement was based around it, meaning that the centre of Erith was once west of its current location.

"So" here implies causation. "Meaning" implies inference.

  • New suggestion: The early settlement was based around it, indicating that the centre of Erith was once west of its current location.
  • You wrote: ...recording a grant by the Bishop of the East Saxons of lands at Erith.
  • I wrote: ...recording a grant by the Bishop of the East Saxons of land at Erith.

I acknowledge that there is very little difference here, but my phrasing was a slight modernisation, which I don't consider controversial.

  • You wrote: ...and was until the 1850s essentially a small riverside port, made prominent by King Henry VIII's decision...
  • I reverted to: ...and was until the 1850s essentially a small riverside port, given prominence by King Henry VIII's decision...

"given prominence" is a much more widely used phrasing that "made prominent". I thought about a compromise clearer way of saying it (eg. "given importance") but "given prominence" is the most precise.

  • You wrote: From 1881 an area north-west of Erith's centre was held by a cable works founded by William Callender.
  • I wrote: From 1881 an area north-west of Erith's centre was the site of a cable works founded by William Callender.

I don't know how you came up with "held by", there is no such collocation as "hold an area" that I've heard. I reworded it from the previous poor phrasing, honestly I don't know what the problem is with my new suggestion.

  • You wrote: Engineering became an important industry round Erith, with armaments and cables the main products. Vickers was a major employer and linked to the Royal Arsenal at nearby Woolwich.
  • I wrote: Engineering became an important industry in Erith, with armaments and cables as the main products. Vickers was a major employer, with links to the Royal Arsenal at nearby Woolwich.

"round" Erith is an informal spoken phrasing, I don't know why you changed it from "around", but I changed it to "in" for simplicity and clarity. "With cables as the main products" is clearer and more modern phrasing than "with cables the main products", though both are fine. The use of 'and' in "a major employer and linked to" doesn't clarify the connection between these two attributes, my phrasing attempted to give some context to this connection.

  • You wrote: In 1961, plans were laid to redevelop Erith as a modern, sleek shopping and working environment. This meant clearing sub-standard housing by the riverside and altering the street layout. Some of the buildings erected, such as the social housing tower blocks, have a brutalist form typical of overspill estates put up by councils in major cities as an affordable way to clear the slums.
  • I wrote: In 1961, Erith began to be redeveloped as a modern shopping and working environment, through the clearing of sub-standard housing by the riverside and alterations to the street layout. Some of the new buildings, such as the social housing tower blocks, have a brutalist form typical of overspill estates built by councils in major cities as an affordable way to clear the slums.

Your edits were an improvement on the previous wording of this paragraph, I just tried to tidy it up a bit, smoothen the wording and simplify some phrasing. What about my edits do you object to?

Obviously a minor quibble, but your wording struck me as slightly strange and attributing some kind of agency to the LGA Act, so I changed it back to the clearer wording.

  • You wrote: Since the late 1990s Erith has undergone marked changes, with the Erith Western Thames Gateway project as the culmination.
  • I wrote: Since the late 1990s Erith has undergone marked changes, culminating in the Erith Western Thames Gateway project.

I simplified the phrasing slightly for clarity. What about my edits do you object to?

  • You wrote: Since 2000 a significant number of new flats have been built by the river by private developers.
  • I wrote: Since 2000 a significant number of new flats have been built on the river by private developers.

Edited to avoid repetition of 'by', which I expected would be uncontroversial.

  • You wrote: ...and is expected to continue the regeneration of the area, hitherto a large underused area of the town centre. Bexley Council is seeking there a mixed-use development with a potential of 6,000 sq. m of new commercial space and over 500 new homes.
  • I wrote: ...and is expected to include the regeneration of a large underused area of the town centre, earmarked by Bexley Council for a mixed-use development with up to 6,000 sq. m of new commercial space and over 500 new homes.

Phrasing edited for simplicity and clarity. What about these edits do you object to?

  • You wrote: The median house price in Erith ward was £181,000 in 2014. This was the third lowest out of the 628 wards in Greater London...
  • I wrote: The median house price in Erith ward was £181,000 in 2014, the third lowest of the 628 wards in Greater London...

Edited for smoother wording, avoid duplication of nouns in short clauses, which I did not expect to be controversial.

Honestly can't see how this is controversial. The part of the town in North End is the easternmost, in Colyers the southernmost. We can try and find an alternative wording, but I don't see any problem whatsoever with what I have already suggested.

  • You wrote: The David Ives Stadium next to the Leisure Centre, often called Erith Stadium, houses Bexley Athletic Club.
  • I wrote: The David Ives Stadium next to the Leisure Centre, often called Erith Stadium, is the home track of Bexley Athletic Club.

'houses' implies that something is inside/indoors. This stadium is not that. The previous wording of "is the home of" was not terribly encyclopaedic, so I tried to find a clear rephrasing that said what it meant. What is your objection to my suggestion?

Again, no distinction in meaning, but I chose a slightly less oblique wording for clarity and ease of reading for eg. non-native speakers who might be reading.

Your version is grammatically incorrect. Manchester United play at Old Trafford, Erith & Belvedere play at Park View Road. Perhaps you are American, in which case fair enough, the difference is down to dialect, but this article is about a British topic, so it's common practice to use British English.

Regarding references for the list of notable people, yes, all the entries on this list need references establishing that they are connected to Erith. If they are lacking, it's because I couldn't find them when I was sourcing this list. If there are references on the individuals' articles, by all means add them here, but the tags are appropriate.

There was a verb missing. This was clearly an editing error, which I corrected, again uncontroversially, I would hope. The fact that this was also reverted indicates that you did not examine my edits closely before reverting en masse.

I'm more than happy to discuss any/all of the above changes, but I would ask you to at least read changes before you revert them and accuse other editors of "fiddling" with yours. Because that's how Wikipedia works, it's a continuous improvement by all editors of the existing text. Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Of course I read them. Nothing much wrong with most, but mine are shorter, which is a consideration. Bmcln1 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure they are shorter, more than a couple of characters? I'm reverting on the basis of my above explanations. Of course feel free to adjust my text, but preferably with some indication why either here or in edit summary. Cheers! Jdcooper (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erith&oldid=1237052599"