Talk:East Tilbury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
I've amended a lot of the awful spelling and grammar mistakes and also neutralised some of the comments on the new development. Wikipedia is not a political platform. Yes, local residents are concerned about the new development. That is a fact. So I have left it in. 'The new development will spoil the neighbourhood' was deleted. That is an opinion, not a fact. If it is built, and does indeed spoil the neighbourhood, then and only then can it be included in Wikipedia, as it will be a fact and no longer an opinion. I also added one advantage of the proposed new development under 'shopping'- if new shops are built in East Tilbury, there will be less far to travel for shops, therefore less harm to the local environment from car exhausts of people constantly driving to Lakeside for shopping. There are two sides to every story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.81.47 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Removal of content
At the end of March User:Caomhin removed various items of content from this article, including a reference to Bede, information on the Bata developments and conservation area status. The edit summary made no mention of these removals. Is there some objection to this material? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I think that was a mistake. I can only assume my concentration slipped whilst on a spam hunt since it looks like valid content - I guess I mistakenly edited from an old revision which led to the removal. I've just redone the edit (forgot to explain it in the edit summary though so I'm still an idiot) to put the valid content back. Caomhin (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
