User talk:Justkindness

Leave the accurate info which I have introduced - eg:telford built on east shrops coalfield and agricultural land and that it the town is an amalgam of other towns, which is self-evident.

oh for gods sake, you didn't even read my edit summary! we know telford is composed of other towns, and this is explained in HISTORY. not only do you not keep the intro section short, concise and RELEVANT, you also seem unable to maintain the overall clarity of the introduction, which is perhaps one of the most important sections of the article! 81.79.44.74 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and btw i have no problem with your additions which are accurate, correct and necessary. if you feel it necessary to include telford is on farmland then add it, just make sure it is grammatically correct! the problem is i have to sift through all the other POV unsourced things to get the article back to a respectable status and i cannot sift through all of your modifications look for the odd one which is actually ok to keep! 81.79.44.74 16:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think angry outbursts have much place in this task. Surely the role of people is to edit accurately? Why do you SO object to the fact that Telford was built on agricultural land and the East Shrops coalfield, or that it is actually a town which consists of many much older towns? In fact telford is MAINLY a group of older towns. You mention clarity - I am aiming for clarity and accuracy, not trying to hide the real facts. I hope this helps you understand my position better and that I think we should all work together trying to do the best job we can.

I don't object to you adding factual information, just that you seem to insert text randomy when it is not needed. The purpose of the introduction is to introduce the article, therefore by definition it should not be excessively long! I have however added the mention of the other towns forming it (despite this being further explained in the body multiple times). Hopefully this statisfies your desires for the introduction. Also, sign your comments on talk pages. 81.79.44.74 11:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed interesting pertinent information from the beginning. You retain material about Ironbridge Gorge, which of course is important, but remove material about The Wrekin and other land marks. I have a feeling that you are actually more interested, not in giving a full and useful account for readers, but a very much more selective account of Shropshire. Shropshire has many varied and interesting features, many of them in different parts of the county. The Wrekin, particularly, needs to be mentioned in the introduction. Or, if you wish, we could move The Wrekin to the body of the article, along with the material about Ironbridge. What I am concerned with is that Shropshire should not become a very restricted article, which your opening account seems to set out with.

The Ironbridge Gorge is far more notable than the Wrekin. Further, Haughmond/Lileshall hill are in no way notable enough to be in the introduction. Besides, the Wrekin is only about half the height of Caer Caradoc, yet we chose not to mention all other hills. There are no hills mentioned in the introduction because they are not a vital part of the article. They are relevant to the GEOGRAPHY section where they are mentioned. If you wish to expand that section then do so. Leave the introduction as it is, short and relevant. But whatever, I give up trying to fix your mistakes, feel free to add whatever you want, the other editors can clean up the mess. 81.79.44.74 13:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]