Archive for the ‘swallows wood’ Category

Wikipedia: Swallows Wood #5

January 18, 2007

…and Sean has to return yet again to revert changes made to the Swallows Wood article.


Wikipedia: Swallows Wood #4

January 18, 2007

…Sean swiftly returns to the Swallows Wood article on wikipedia to revert changes made to it by another user.

Wikipedia: Swallows Wood #3

January 18, 2007

Today, Sean again edits the Swallows Wood article. He adds the following text (as ever, spelling mistakes are his):

In 2005 local anti-bypass group Save Swallows Wood were critisied for leaving litter and visual eyesores in the nature reserve following a protest.

And he also removes scientific references to how the CO2 offset/tree planting proposed by TMBC will not work.

Wikipedia: Swallows Wood talk page #1

January 16, 2007

Sean returns to edit the talk page for the Swallows Wood article. Someone had cottoned on to the fact it is him editing the page and had left a statement. His edit removes that statement.

Wikipedia: User talk:VinceBowdren #1

January 15, 2007

Sean now turns his attention to editing the ‘user talk’ page of the wikipedia contributor who has created the Swallows Wood page. In the start of an ‘edit war’, he sets about his views on why the Swallows Wood page should reflect his views, and this is copied below (Sean’s contributions are in italics – spelling mistakes are his):

Vince – Hi, it is always good to discuss issues rather than enter ‘edit wars’.

I make the following points:

””The nature reserve is not a ‘small copse’. It is a 60-acre site of mixed habitats. I’m still trying to work out how to make the link work well in the article, but here is a photo of one of the nature reserve’s information boards which I used as my primary source for what I have written: [1] “”

I know this area well having walked it for almost 25years. It is a copse. If you add the surrounding areas of fields then you could argue a 60 acre site. I noticed last year that plastic banners and litter had been strewn across the site by ‘environmentalists!!

”It is not unmanaged. When I passed through in December I noticed a fallen tree lying parallel to the path and the wall alongside, which had obviously not fallen in that place and alignment naturally. I’m afraid I don’t have a citation (so I haven’t made any claims in the article about the management of the nature reserve), but this was definitely a good example of woodland management in practice.”

This is FAR from evidence of management. There is no biological plan, diversity in species, felling or integration of the ecotone. I beleive the site should be managed by United Utilities but since privatisation this has reduced somewhat along the whole Longdendale valley – very sad, as Crowden used to be a fantastic area for walking.

”There are certainly intentions to perform new planting to mitigate the damage which will be caused by the bypass; upstream there is a field which is filled with newly-planted saplings, and the plans for the bypass itself include environmental measures ([2]) but it is misleading of you to imply that a planting and management schedule would be an easy and effective substitute for the loss of established habitats, let alone an ‘improvement’.”

The very fact we have a planting and management schedule implies improvement?

”There is no obvious emblem on the campaign to save swallows wood website; and even if they had adopted a swallow as their emblem, it is unfair of you to take this as evidence of their ecological or historical ignorance”

The emblem has now been removed under humiliation. it was well covered in the local press.

Wikipedia: Swallows Wood #2

January 15, 2007

Sean’s back again today – this under his user ID – to revert the undone edits to this page that he previously set up 3 days ago.

Wikipedia: Swallows Wood #1

January 12, 2007

Sean now turns his attention to the wikipedia page for Swallow’s Wood. Although he has tried to portray himself as concerned with Green matters elsewhere (his own wikipedia page, since removed), his edits on this page demonstrate his obsession with downplaying the environmental credibility of one of the largest nature reserves in his own constituency. His additions to the article are reproduced below:

The site consists of a small copse of unmanaged trees and Tameside Council has committed to plant 10,000 managed trees slowly moving the woodland away from the bypass route.

Anti-road campaigners ‘Save Swallows Wood’ incorrectly believe the copse was named after nesting swallows in the area, as seen on their group emblem, although the area is named after land owner John Swallow.

Pro-bypass campaigners Longdendale Seige Committee have lobbied Tameside council to improve the naturte reserve with a planting and management schedule

(The credibility of the ‘carbon offsets’ intended by TMBC’s proposed tree-planting are rebutted in subsequent edits to this page, which will feature here)