User talk:BradfordPal1

Welcome

Hello, BradfordPal1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Bradford. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Charles (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bradford, you may be blocked from editing. Charles (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case it hasn't been made clear previously: BEFORE you add or return challenged content to an article, YOU must provide a reliable source that supports the claims made. Repeated attempts to insert unsupported claims will get you blocked from editing. (as will disrupting an article talk page with inappropriate assertions of your righteous cause.) Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully not,but i don't believe for a minute this is about unsupported claims.BradfordPal1 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bradford, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a strange idea of free speech.I don't agree that i've disrupted anything,the TWO landmarks..the Bronte Sisters birth place in Thornton and the UNESCO world heritage site IN Saltaire need to be included in the Bradford landmark section,i believe whoever is responsible for the Bradford page to be the real vandal or vandals.BradfordPal1 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about free speech. It is about creating an encyclopedia of verifiable content. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i said previously,i don't believe for a minute this has anything to do with verification or unsupported claims for that matter,anyone who read my sons edit insert would understand that.Any one who would allow a person of no worth born in Dewsbury who murdered his victims and disposed of their body parts in Saltaire to be mentioned on the Bradford page yet not to allow Sir Titus Salt onto the Bradford page..he was a great humanitarian and Bradford Mayor who i believe was born in Morley who built his village in Saltaire which is a UNESCO world heritage site,the mind boggles at that piece of editing,the Bradford page is a misrepresentation and damages the image of the City.BradfordPal1 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect test of that would be when you return from your block to have reliable sources at the ready to support your claims. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verify what lol ....i don't believe verification is the problem ,try reading my sons insert...i'm sure you'll get the gist of it.... The Brontë sisters were born in Thornton which was incorporated into the City of Bradford in 1899 , but wrote most of their novels while living at the Haworth Parsonage (which is now a museum owned and maintained by the Brontë Society), when their father was the parson at the adjacent Church of St. Michael and All Angels. The house in which the Brontë sisters were born in is situated on Market Street Thornton,Bradford (Charlotte-1816,Emily Jane-1818 and Anne-1820) is a grade11 listed building,one of 5,800 in Bradford and can be visited on the way to Haworth parsonage around 5 miles away. To the North of the City lies the UNESCO World Heritage site at Saltaire,the village was built in 1853 for his mill workers by the Bradford mill owner Sir Titus Salt.Sir Titus Salt was the largest employer in Bradford at the time and also became Lord Mayor of the Town.There is a superb statue of Sir Titus situated in the newly refurbished Roberts Park in Saltaire.BradfordPal1 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have absolutely no intention to actually listen and so I wont waste any more of my time or yours. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listening no,reading yes,but only if it makes sense do you act on that...unfortunately as i'm sure you know lol this has nothing to do with verification ,you only have to read the original objections to my sons edit insert to realise that,i believe that some are using the Bradford page to create a negative image of the City,the fact that there is no mention of the Bronte birth place which lies within the old 1899 Bradford City boundary or indeed Sir Titus Salt and his magnificent UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE village but there are plenty of nrgatives about the City which seem to be embraced with open arms leads me to the conclusion that the page is being used to reinforce negative stereo types in regards to the City of Bradford.The page is an utter disgrace.BradfordPal1 (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

I am reporting you to the 3RR noticeboard for continued edit warring.--Charles (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That really is sad....Whoever is responsible for the Bradford wikipedia page is actually damaging the Cities image and is probably costing the city of Bradford considerable amounts of money.The page as it stands is simply a misrepresentation and an utter disgrace.BradfordPal1 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT here to promote or polish anyone's image. It is here to be an encyclopedic reference of verifiable content. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have come here because of a report on you at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. It is totally clear to me that your editing is not vandalism. In fact I know perfectly well that content you have added is true. However, unfortunately there are large numbers of people who come to Wikipedia and post information which is not true, and so the Wikipedia community cannot take the word of editors such as you and me for what is true. You need to provide references to sources that confirm what you say. Have a look at the guidelines on verifiability and reliable sources to see what is required. If you need help in how to add references to the article when you have found the sources you are welcome to contact me on my talk page. One other thing: if other editors contest your edits, don't just keep repeating them, or you will be in danger of being blocked from editing. See the policy on edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that while I was writing that you were in fact blocked. I also see that you are supposedly the father of an editor who has been blocked, and attempted to evade the block by sockpuppetry, and that you have continued that user's editing. I also see that you have taken part in discussion on a talk page where all the issues have been explained to you. Had I known that I would not have wasted my time writing a message politely explaining the situation to you, assuming you were editing in good faith and didn't know about the relevant guidelines and policies. This account is either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, and you are really lucky it has not been blocked indefinitely. When your block expires please try to follow the advice I have given to you, or it is very likely you will be blocked indefinitely. Your aim seems to be to get valid information added to the article, and you are far more likely to succeed in doing that if you cooperate and fit in to the way Wikipedia works than if you try to bulldoze your edits through. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also know the feeling of wasting my time lol i haven't got a clue about the evading bit of your post ,my son posted the original edit insert then came back with the same tag,that's hardly evading is it,he told me i'd be wasting my time and so far he's been proved correct....on your point about editing....I find it amazing that people would edit putting in content that is basically rubbish,what's the thinking behind that,having looked on the Bradford page,the editing there is shocking,the page is basically a misrepresentation of the City.The idea that the cannibal killer get's a mention but the great humanitarian Sir Titus Salt doesn't is a disgrace.The Bronte sisters birth place has been within the City boundaries since Thornton was incorporated into the City in 1899 yet doesn't get mentioned in the Bradford Landmark section,stranger than fiction some would say.BradfordPal1 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello BradfordPal1,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

As you are probably aware, I am the admin who blocked your son for edit warring and breaching the Sockpuppet policy. It is permissible to have more than one account, but it was they way that the accounts were being used that led to the block. Although you are blocked, you are able to edit this talk page. As I said at the talk page of the Bradford article, your account is being used as a meatpuppet, which is also against policy. I could have blocked you indefinitely for the edit warring, and no admin would have raised an eyebrow over the block. Once the block expires, you are free to edit Wikipedia, but I would caution against re-adding that material to the Bradford article, or the next block will be indefinite. It is long-standing consensus that the info should not be in the Bradford article because at the time that the Brontë's and Salt were alive, those locations were not part of Bradford, but lay outside its boundaries. Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My account is being used by me only,i haven't tried to evade anyone,vandalise anything or any of the other stuff i'm supposed to have been doing........,I don't know how this consensus came about but it's a joke,who are these people,the consensus is actually damaging the City's image.The Bradford page is a misrepresentation of the City not taking into account these glaring ommisions my son brought to the Bradford landmark page,looking at other large City pages,Bradford's page is dire.The emphasis on riots,crime and ethnic minorities,it's a disgrace.Taking a look at the Leicester page which is a similar sized City with a large ehnic minority/majority which no doubt has it's own problems,well there is no comparison,why is the City of Bradford getting what seems like special wikipedia editing treatment in regards to the emphasis being on the negative.The Bradford page is damaging the City's image.One last point,Sir Titus Salt was Lord Mayor of Bradford,surely that merits a mention,yet there is no mention yet the crossbow cannibal murderer get's a mention,disgracful.I'm afraid the consensus of opinion in regards to the Bronte's birth place and Sir Titus Salt and the UNESCO World Heritage site has come to a very strange conclusion.BradfordPal1 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you and your son were adding the same info against consensus, that behaviour is considered to be meatpuppetry, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Re Sir Titus Salt, I'd say that he possibly could be listed in the "Notable Bradfordians" section of the article. The way to go about getting him added is to start a discussion on the talk page about his inclusion in that section of the article. If consensus is that he can be added, the you may add him. You could also start a discussion re the Brontë's, but previous experience is that consensus would be against their inclusion, for the reasons previously stated. Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your son's block. It may be possible for him to get this lifted. However, to achieve this would require, at minimum, the use of only one account, and a pledge not to edit war at Bradford, or re-add the info previously added and deleted against consensus. Should he wish to appeal, instructions are on his talk page. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info,my son is a very talanted guitarist who obviously spends alot of time either playing or practising,the impression i'm getting is that he's done what he can in the limited spare time he has and he's not prepared to... as he see's it, waste any more time in regards to the wikipedia page.I'll certainly ask him though,and thanks for the information in regards to his position.BradfordPal1 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus has come up with the Bradford page as it is today,how on earth can it be changed for the better,it's a disgracful misrepresentation of the City of Bradford and is actually damaging the City's image.The negative stereo typing only adds to the downbeat vibe given when reading the page.I'm sure you're a good man/woman,sorry i don't know your gender but please read it then try reading the Leeds page or Leicester page or any other of the large City pages.I'm proud of my roots as are all my family,i'm simply asking someone to take a look ,someone who can do something to put Bradford's page on a par with all the other large City pages.Thanks for taking the time to answer my last post.BradfordPal1 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few suggestions. I don't know whether they will help, but I hope so.

I have just had a look at the article. It is quite long, and to me, as an outsider, the negative aspects seem to be a minor part of the whole. Yes, there are negative points, but those do not, to me, dominate the overall impression. This is not to dismiss your concerns, but just to try to put them in perspective. Very often particular aspects will seem much bigger to an insider than to someone who looks at the whole from a more detached perspective.
The way to try to get changes is to suggest them and discuss them in a cooperative spirit. What you have done has rather looked like an attempt to force through your view and dismiss the opinions of others. Whether you intended it that way or not, if that is the way it comes across it is likely to antagonise other people, who will then not be likely to cooperate with you, and you will be very unlikely to get the sort of changes you have in mind. If you are seen as trying to cooperate then there is a much better chance that people will listen to your views, and perhaps be influenced by them.
Accept that in a large collaborative project you will be unlikely to get exactly what you want, and be prepared to settle for getting a small part of what you want. When I first started editing Wikipedia I found it annoying and frustrating when people insisted on removing information that I knew was correct. However, at a fairly early stage I realised that it wasn't worth getting upset about. If I see that I am not going to get a change that I think is right I make a judgement as to which of two alternatives to follow: (1) try to work towards a compromise in which I may get something a little closer to what I would like than the status quo, or (2) drop the issue, and move on to another change that I might have a better chance of achieving. I believe that by doing this I have over the course of time actually managed to make a good many improvements, and I can live with the fact that there are other improvements that I have failed to get.
What geographical area should be included in an article about a city? There is no objective answer to that. There is no way that I personally can think of Keighley as part of Bradford, even though I know that it has been administered by Bradford council for thirty odd years. On the other hand, I certainly do think of Thornton as part of Bradford, while Haworth to me seems borderline for inclusion. However, other people quite sincerely hold different views on this. When there are different opinions on an issue, we sometimes get chaos as people with different views battle against each other, reverting and undoing one another's edits, and generally making a total mess of the whole business. Probably the worst example is all the articles with any connection at all to the Israel/Palestine issue, but there are many more. Luckily these problems occur in only a small minority of the 3 million plus articles on Wikipedia, but when they do occur they can be very destructive, and it is necessary to have some methods of dealing with them. Unfortunately you have fallen victim to those methods. I have no doubt that your editing was done in perfectly good faith, but the methods you employed were, unfortunately, not helpful. I hope you can now edit with more success than you had at first. In order to do so, consider the suggestions I have made, and also assume that other editors are sincere and deserve respect, even when you disagree with them. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James,Thanks for the suggestions,yes,maybe the bull in the china shop wasn't the best way forward. The point i've made on a few occasions is that the Bradford page doesn't match any of the other large wikipedia City pages,for me the consensus have come up with a Bradford page that has a negative view of the City.I've looked at many big City pages and none have sections pointing out mass murdereers or riots.I find those sections a disgrace,after all there are far more violent City's in the UK than Bradford yet Bradford seems to be getting special negative wikipedia editing.I'm not asking for the Bradford page to get any special treatment,i'm asking for the page to get the same tratment as the rest of the large City pages featured in wikipedia.The Leeds,Glasgow and Belfast wikipedia pages are superb and so should be the Bradford wikipedia page.BradfordPal1 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Bradford. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,it wasn't actually a mistake,i've looked at many major City wikipedia pages and none that i've read has a crime section,for instance Leeds has a far worse crime problem than Bradford but has no crime section on it's page nor does Belfast or Glasgow.I'd like to edit it so that the Bradford page can be on a par with the other Wikipedia pages i've mentioned.BradfordPal1 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds discusses crime under Leeds#Metropolitan_district and the section could probably be expanded, many cities do include crime sections. If you wish to discuss further I suggest you attempt to reach a consensus for blanking the section on the talk page first. Fæ (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a quick look see at the Leeds link,it isn't actually like for like as it's not under a crime heading as on the Bradford wikipedia page.I certainly wouldn't have any objections if the Bradford page followed that example.BradfordPal1 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bradford with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken,maybe move the Bradford crime section as with the Leeds page would be a good idea,i've made a couple of comments on the Bradford talk page,crime section,i'll leave it at that and see what the consensus thinks.BradfordPal1 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember to use edit summaries that explain why you are making any major changes. You are much less likely to be reverted if it is clear why you did something that may otherwise look suspicious. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to the page Bradford with this edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continued editing against concensus

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bradford. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.--Charles (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bradford, you may be blocked from editing. Adding content and inline links against consensus yet again. Harkey (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is adding information regarding Bradford's Jewish connection and Titus Salt's attempt to reduce Bradford's smoke pollution in 1849 regarded as disruptive editing.What consensus has actually said anything against those edits.I certainly have only had one person disagreeing with my recent edits,that doesn't add up to any sort of consensus.To describe my edits as vandalism seems odd.I know wikipedia does get lots of bad edits from people who are just messing about but my edits are hopefully enlightening wikipedia readers in regards to information on Bradford's history.BradfordPal1 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the last week alone, four different editors have reverted various edits you made at Bradford. That suggests a consensus against you. (Note that I am making no comment at all on whether the consensus is justified, but just pointing out that it exists.) I do agree, however, that your edits are certainly not vandalism, and the wrong word was used there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...i actually thought it was the same person removing my inserts,to find out that there are more, that is even more perplexing.What on earth anyone has against these inserts is beyond me.I'd have thought the Jewish information was key to understanding Bradford's success in becoming the City it was and is today.The Bronte insert into the notable Bradfordians is simply adding what has been there for the previous few months,i also had a peek on the page a couple of years ago and the Bronte sisters info was also there on the notable Bradfordian list.The Titus Salt insert regarding the Rodda Smoke Burner is key to understanding why he moved to Saltaire.BradfordPal1 (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not studied the edits in question in depth, but my quick impression is that at least some of your edits look reasonable, and I'm not sure what the objections are. I will try to find time in the next day or so to check more thoroughly, but I don't have time now. If I haven't got back to you in 48 hours it will probably be because I've forgotten to, so please do feel very welcome to remind me on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,i could maybe understand one edit being objected to,but all of my inserts reverted by all four editors,that seems odd in the extreme,i feel that i've done everything in regards to linking my edits,i've added bits to the talk Bradford section.I can't except the Jewish immigrants being ignored on the Bradford page when in the 19th and 20th century they did so much for the Town and City of Bradford.The Rodda Smoke Burner in regards to Titus Salt also seems like a no brainer.BradfordPal1 (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humbert Wolfe

Hi BradfordPal1. I've just edited an article you previously edited, and taken the liberty of coming here and reading your talkpage; d'you mind if i offer a suggestion? As someone who was brought up in two different cities (two countries), and who has lived in five or six more, and assorted towns, too, i have no great allegiance to any city, and i rather envy you yours. Perhaps, nevertheless, it might behove you to take a step back from Bradford itself, and make some further edits, elsewhere. This will have a dual effect, i think, in that it will both help establish your reputation as a good editor, a member of the community, and it will give you experience in how Wikipedia works, because it is by no means intuitive nor obvious. In a way, i think you've maybe begun this process with your edit to Humbert Wolfe.

You'll notice, if you look, that i have changed it slightly, and i think my change might help you further your cause. First, the information was put in the middle of a sentence about Wolfe's Jewish background; in fact, it separated the statement of that background and the explanation of it. Second, when you put it in, you used a comma with no space after it; i notice here, on your page, that you tend to type that way, and that's fine, for talk pages, but not for the articles themselves; it isn't correct usage, so i urge you to proofread any edits you make before you save them. The "Preview" button, next to "Save page", is excellent for that. Third, you'll see that i added a template asking for a citation for the fact you added. In other words, how do you know it? can you prove it? where can i go to discover its truth? This is what we call verification, and is required. May i suggest you find a reference for this fact, and add it to Wolfe's article, as your next step? I'm sorry if i'm being pushy, or unwelcome; i've seen that you don't feel welcomed, though, and i assure you that, really, you are. If i can help in any way, just ask, or respond here, as your talk page is now on my watchlist. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 06:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lindsay,thanks for the input in regards to Humbert Wolfe, it does read better. I don't know about not being welcomed, i guess i was sad that the Bradford page had been neglected and was basically a poor reflection on the City. I'm actually in the process of adding pages on the influence the German Jewish migrants had on the Town/City of Bradford, Richard Eurich being the next page i'll be producing. Once i've added all that content on various Bradfordians, i'll maybe have a look at other pages in regards to editing.BradfordPal1 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'm glad if you didn't feel not welcomed; i was just basing my comment on the talk page.

I checked out Richard Eurich and, as you'll notice, slightly edited it; i hope you think i've improved it a little. That's always my aim. What do you have in the way of references for what you have put there? D'you have books? or are there resources in Bradford? or maybe on-line? that we can add to make it clear where the information came from.

So, was/is there a large Jewish German community in Bradford? And what caused that to develop? Interesting, how communities develop and change, isn't it?

By the way, if you type a colon (:) at the beginning of a new paragraph on your talk page (as i have on these comments), the magic of Wikipedia indents your comment, making it clearer who's saying what. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lindsay, yes this page makes interesting reading,laughs out loud. I've no objections at all to you editing my pages,i guess two heads are better than one.The information all comes from on- line sources and from what i've read in the local paper Telegraph and Argus.

I can reference to outside sources but haven't worked out how to get those references numbered and to the bottom of the page.

The Bradford German Jewish community was probably at most between 100 and 150 familys. They were merchants and academics who came to the Town as it was then to start businesses in the wool textile industry. The impression from what i've read is that many of these familys were quite well off financilly when they arrived in Bradford. The Jewish community in the City nowadays is small,around 360 in 2005.

The first world war had a devastating effect on the whole City with most of the two Bradford Pals Battalions slaughtered in the Battle of the Somme and the anti German feeling that caused. At that time some of the German migrants changed their names or left the City altogether.

Without doubt the German Jewish wool merchants of the 19th and early 20th century played a major role in building Bradford into the wool capital of the world.

Personally,i think their story is absolutely fascinating, and probably a book worth writing. Thanks for the interest and the information not to mention the english lessons lol.Take care Neil aka BradfordPal1 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, if you can show me the references, the sources, here or on the Eurich talk page, i'll show you how to format them. It took me quite a while to work it out, so i'm happy to pass on what i can to help. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use inline external links

"How many times do we have to tell you that you cannot have an inline external link. Use references or external links!" You have had edits undone for consistently doing this. I have removed an edit from history and moved it to a more suitable place -religion, and correctly referenced it. I learned to do this by copying fron citations in the text. Next time I will just revert it. You've been editing for long enough to start learning how to do things properly now.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of writing a biography , thought i'd put a bit of info regarding the Russian Jews which i'd added a while back..back on, i don't agree by the way that it should just be in the religion section. I've yet to master the references bit, for me you can revert away as i keep all the info and i can add it all once i've got to grips with everything in regards to Wikipedia editing. I believe your input has improved the page immeasurably, hopefully mine has also been of some use.Take it easy BradfordPal1 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor, not just me, spends ages improving a page it is extremely demotivating to see stuff just dumped anywhere with inline citations. The biggest problem with this article was just that, stuff dumped and not referenced. Now you are doing it. If you just put the url in the reference tags (a couple of lines down from Save page) it would be an improvement but you seem determined to go yur own sweet way regardless.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the biggest problem with it was that it misrepresented the City, i couldn't believe my eyes when i first read the page a couple of years back. A total disgrace. Read my post above, i'm far from going my own sweet way. Thanks for the info regarding references.BradfordPal1 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List

I have removed Behrens yet again, he is mentioned in history. Please do not keep adding to this list people mentioned in the text. Thank you.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again,i'd only noticed him being removed once. How on earth am i supposed to know who's removing what exactly. Obviously there is alot of editing going on, it's not a consensus of one. As far as i'm aware Behrens had been on the Bradford page list since i put him there a week or so ago, at least until today,i saw he had disappeared so simply added him again, no big deal, you've explained your thinking, i'll leave it at that,although on this occasion i've no idea on the thought process behind this removal, as it makes no sense, a notable Bradfordian is surely a notable BRADFORDIAN WHETHER HE'S BEEN MENTIONED in the ABOVE text OR OTHER WISE..I still believe the job you and others have done on editing and improving the Bradford page is excellent. Hopefully you wont take my differences on three or four edits to heart.

The absurdity of a Bradford page with no mention of the Jewish connection to the town and City is what was on offer only a few weeks ago along with other glaring ommisions.That had to be addressed or else the whole page would be a joke, that's where local knowledge comes in. I'm not here to upset anyone but i want this page to be a correct representation of the town and City through the ages and i believe we're getting there. Take it easy...BradfordPal1 (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You click "View history" at the top of the page to see what's been done, that's why is useful to leave an edit summary. Lots of editors are tidying up your edits and new pages. The idea is to get rid of the list not make it longer.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Stop adding strange formatting to articles such as Friederich Wilhelm Eurich.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added any strange formatting as you strangly put it.BradfordPal1 (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. --J3Mrs (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do know what they say about sarcasm, if you don't actually know what i'm trying to do, i wont bother explaining the obvious. Keep up the good work in regards to the Bradford page. BradfordPal1 (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bradford. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

What's disruptive about highlighting the very important Jewish connection to Bradford in the 19th and early 20th century. It seems there is no thought of anyone being disruptive if misleading stuff is added about Pakistan or Muslims in regards to the Bradford page ( eg the bottom sentence in the demographics section is obviously the figure for the whole district not the settlement) i pointed this out on the Bradford talk page weeks ago but lo and behold it never even got an answer and certainly didn't get removed, very odd. Yet i highlight the Jewish contribution and i'm threatened with being blocked. Very sad, but i'm not surprised. I'm quite sure that if for what ever reason someone added wrong figures regarding the Jewish population in Bradford, massaging them upwards considerably, those figures would be removed immeadiately, and so they should be, so why haven, the wrong figures regarding the South Asian population of Bradford been removed. Very strange and a complete disgrace.BradfordPal1 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here long enough to know what disruptive means so why don't you just pack it in?--J3Mrs (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been disruptive, i'm simply highlighting the Jewish contribution. How come nobody has removed to wrong figures at the bottom of the demographic section in regards to the Southern Asian population in Bradford. The figures are actually so wrong it's embarrassing, as i mentioned weeks ago on the Bradford talk page, those figures are for the whole district, including Keighley, laughable but true. This is just the sort of inept editing that gives wikipedia such a joke reputation. Get that sorted then come back to me and tell me why the Russian Jews can't be highlighted, it should make interesting reading.BradfordPal1 (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm so inept, I'll leave it to you then. Why on earth would I want to sort out anything for an editor who makes unnecessary work? Disruptive editing is not going to get me to do your bidding, do it yourself.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are inept, obviously 20% of 500,000 is about what the demographic page came up with. I posted it on th 8th of August on the Bradford talk page.It's still there, i could remove it, i've no idea what the correct figure is but it's nowhere near the 100,000 or so that's given, the population of Bradford is around 293,000, work it out for yourself. Maybe if editors concentrated on getting the page facts correct and a little less on what's highlighted would make more sense, to remove the highlights ( eg Russian Jews) comes across as petty, while figures that are so far out it's embarrassing remain, it's ludicrous. Like i've said on many occasions, the job that's been done on the Bradford page is superb, but there's still work to be done.BradfordPal1 (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But not by me.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to read that, take it easy. BradfordPal1 (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Friederich Wilhelm Eurich . Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They may appear to constitute vandalism in your opinion, but to revert them could also appear to be exactly the same. BradfordPal1 (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note BradfordPal1 that small text is depracated, i.e. we do not use it. It is difficult for partially sighted readers. Bold text is only used for the title in the lead (and not bold plus italic) and for the target of redirects. I do not know if there is any specific policy on large text but repeatedly switching between normal and large in a sentence is visually disruptive and pointless. Removing this is certainly not vandalism.--Charles (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original text i wanted to highlight on the Friederich Wilhelm Eurich page was highlighted in just large but i maybe wrong and it may have been bold black, i believe i changed the original to either of the two i've mentioned above as the original highlighted text was reverted, hope i'm making sense. I believe i didn't persist with bold black but did try a few times with the large print and various other ways of highlighting a particular sentence on that and other pages i'd written, which were mostly reverted except for another piece i did on Jacob Unna and the one which had the small print. As i've said on many occasions, the editing J3Mrs seems to have been involved with on the Bradford page has been superb, i guess i may have made comments in a honest manor that may have seemed harsh but they certainly were not directed at this particular editor, it was meant in general terms on some demographic stats that were on the wrong Bradford page, and had been for months.I take your point about small text, if it hasn't been removed i'll do that now.BradfordPal1 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jacob Moser. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--J3Mrs (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back, i thought it was within wikipedia guidelines that large letters could be used to highlight, having read Charlesdrakew post above, that seems what is inferred, i don't make disruptive edits, i'm trying to highlight text. While you're here, any ideas why a religion edit i did on the Bradford page was reverted, i changed the word City to town , as when the Synogogues were built,Bradford was still a town, i also added couple of capital letters that seemed like they were missing . BradfordPal1 (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be adding anything to the Bradford article but I will revert your incessant disruption and vandalism. Capital letters are only reqired for proper nouns and names.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never vandalised anything in my life, i'm sure you cannot say the same. I'll add towns in regards to the Jewish religion section for the reason i gave above. Thanks. BradfordPal1 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent what I said. I did not say it is alright to use large text.--Charles (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say it wasn't all right to use them either, you didn't know. So if you didn't know you can't surely say it's wrong. I haven't as yet read anything that actually say's you can't. Obviously if it's against wikipedia editing policy i'll stop but i believe more clarification is needed. Any large words i've used are now sentence long rather than the odd word being enlarged. Thanks for your interest. BradfordPal1 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Astbury

Hello, We seem to be repeatedly removing and adding Ian Astbury from the List of people from Bradford. I have stated in my reverts that he shouldn't be there as he was only in Bradford for a few years. According to Wikipedia he moved to Bradford in late 1980, and in the article on The Cult, the band had moved to London by 1985. To my mind this isn't significant enough to say he is 'from Bradford'. If you want to add him again, can you provide some justification please? Nick Watts (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I guess i take the Kaiser Chiefs as an example, they are basically a City of Bradford post (1974 boundary changes} band as i believe most of the band members hail from Menston and Keighley but the band name is included on the Leeds list. If you then look at the Southern Death Cult/ Death Cult/ The Cult which were bands formed in Bradford and most of the bands members either lived in Bradford or both lived and were born in the area, i simply took the leading member of those bands, who did live in the city for a number of years and added him to the list. The Cult has always recognized Bradford as it's home, i believe Ian Asbury has credited the city in the past as being the catalist for his music career . The Cult are a Bradford band but i don't believe that the Cult should be listed as the Leeds list has done with the Kaiser Chiefs, that's not what these lists are about, yes name band members but i wouldn't add a band name, ... Ian Astbury alone should be on the Bradfordian list.BradfordPal1 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Watts is quite right, find a ref or it will go. What you believe is irrelevant without a reference to why he should be on the list, ie not that he lived there, similarly Paul Jewell.--J3Mrs (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there , Paul Jewell lived in Menston for many years, i believe it's mentioned on the Menston page. Paul Jewell played for Bradford City for around ten years and then managed the club for around three years, i believe when he moved on to Sheffield Wednesday, to manage them, he continued to live in the Bradford district. I would imagine that him having got the Ipswich Town job, he will now have left the area, i don't know his personal details but i would imagine Jewell will have lived within the extended City of Bradford for upwards of fifteen years. In regards to Ian Astbury, i'm not sure what you want, he formed the band the Cult while living in the City, i believe that's documented on the Cult wiki page, i suppose i could dig up information in regards to the other members, i believe Asbury lived in the City for at least five years. I'll have a look to see if there is some info on exactly how long and get back to you over the weekend.BradfordPal1 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the fact that The Cult is a Bradford band, i.e. a band that was formed in Bradford, but that doesn't make it's members Bradfordians - just because they formed the band in the short period they were living in Bradford. If they were born, grew up in Bradford, or had spent a large part of their adult lives in Bradford, then fair enough, but they don't seem to have as far as I can see. The band is credited as a Bradford band on it's page and also on Bands and musicians from Yorkshire and North East England#Bradford, so they're doing their bit flying the flag for Bradford, but I don't see it needs to go any further. Nick Watts (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you want, as i said above, Ian Astbury was living in the City when he formed the bands that ended up being the Cult, he lived in the City for at least five years, i believe that's documented. Basically it's all already on either the Cult wiki page or the Ian Astbury wiki page. I can't really add much, but will look at it over the weekend. BradfordPal1 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is to not have Ian Astbury on the list of people from Bradford page. My argument being that living in a place for 5 years is not sufficient time to qualify - it is not a significant portion of his adult life. The fact that he formed a famous band whilst in Bradford does not make him a Bradfordian. Nick Watts (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What length of time makes someone a Bradfordian, it's a strange argument, i'd have thought someone who has spent that amount of time in one place has an attachment to that place, you don't actually know how long he stayed in Bradford, it could be longer than five years, i believe the very fact that the most importent part of his musical career started in the city, makes him worthy of a place on the list.BradfordPal1 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick Watts. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Lots of people have an attachment to places, it doesn't mean they should be included as notable people. Consider this, what difference has he made to Bradford?--J3Mrs (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has the executioner on the list done for Bradford, not a lot i suggest... where as the band the Cult have produced some good concerts and music, the CD Ceremony being the best in my opinion. So any music fan whose's into their sort of music, i guess they've done plenty in regards to good listening for there many fans in the City and further afield. I don't actually think it matters what they've done for the city, it's whether the people on the list are worthy, i believe Ian Astbury is, having lived in the city for many years and formed a band that went on to sell millions of CD's worldwide. You can draw as many lines as you like, but in the end you'll still be wrong in this instance, no one knows for sure how long Astbury lived in the City, but even if it was five years, that has to be a strong case for inclusion. BradfordPal1 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deliberately miss the point? You can't answer the question as to what difference has he made to Bradford. Provide a ref, or as it says at the top of the page, he goes.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what points that. I'm quite sure Ian Asbury will be going shortly, of that i've no doubt, but does he have to make a difference to Bradford to stay. I suggest you're missing my point in regards to someone being on the list. I wont bore myself and possibly you by repeating myself, but if you're not clear try reading my posts again. BradfordPal1 (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree with Nick Watts. I would suggest that a Bradford born executioner who despatched over 200 Nazi war criminals plus Lord Haw-Haw and other traitors is a lot more notable than a member of a band I have never heard of.--Charles (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a job well done. In regards to The Cult, you don't know what you're missing, i recommend for your first Cult CD Ceremony, a classic rock album that will have you nodding your head in no time. BradfordPal1 (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has gone well off the rails. If we can return to the point, i.e. what criteria we use to include someone on this list. Your ascertion seems to be that Ian Astbury should be on the list because he formed a famous band whilst living in Bradford. My argument is that that is not sufficient reason for being on this list. And that, given he wasn't born or brought up in Bradford, he should have spent a significan proportion of his adult life here to qualify. What evidence we have suggests he came here in 1980 and had left by 1985. Therefore spending the vast majority of his adult life elsewhere - I would be amazed if Ian Astbury considered himself as being from Bradford. If he were quietly bringing up a family in a small farmhouse on the outskirts of Bradford then I would have no problem with putting him on the list. But we have no evidence that he currently lives in Bradford, or that he has done for the last 25 years. He is patently not someone from Bradford. If you want to add him to the List of people from Merseyside (his birthplace), then please do, because, by some oversight, he is not there. Nick Watts (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you add him to the Merseyside list, but thanks for the offer. I added him to the Bradford list as a reference to the Bradford band the Cult, as i mentioned in one of my earlier posts. I don't think where he was born is that relevent as long as he spent considerable time living or working in the city. Up to the point he left to tour the world with his band, he had spent the majority of his adult life in Bradford. The idea that he'd have a small farmhouse on the outskirts of Bradford, probably doesn't sit well with most local band members i know when they talk about making millions in the world of music. I believe you're wrong in this instance, but will only add him again if and when i get more information regarding his stay in the City of Bradford.BradfordPal1 (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to List of people from Bradford

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on List of people from Bradford. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Keith D (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an edit of mine had been removed a few times, i added on the outskirts of Bradford as there are two Thornton villages in the Bradford area, one has a BD13 post code, i believe the other has a BD23 code. It seems a little more clarity is needed as not everyone clicks onto the link provided by Thornton. One village is on the outskirts of Bradford while the other is on the outskirts of Skipton.BradfordPal1 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's Skipton got to do with it, the article is about Bradford? Most people will realise it's about Bradford, as you said yourself there's a link. This has nothing to do with postcodes, just your continual disruptive editing.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you've got involved, but surely most people as you so aptly put it isn't accurate enough, but looking at what the Bradford page was like, hardly surprising you'd think my editing was disruptive. There is indeed a link, but those that glance at it wouldn't know which Thornton it was, as both have Bradford post codes. I don't actually understand why anyone would object to the words " on the outskirts of Bradford" as it does explain exactly where the sisters were born without the need to use the link.By the way, shouldn't this be on the Bradford discussion page, otherwise some might think there may be stalking issues.I suggest any more discussion about this be made on there.BradfordPal1 (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my two-penneth, when I have reverted your edits I've added a note saying why. If you disagree with me then please say why - that way we can come to some agreement. If you just keep re-entering the same stuff without explanation, we will keep reverting it. In addition to the point that this is an article about Bradford (and hence no need to explain that the Thornton in question is the one near to Bradford), the Thornton near to Skipton is actually called Thornton in Craven, as far as I can see, so there shouldn't be any confusion anyway. Nick Watts (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to reverts, i don't check, as it seems a clique, it's the usual suspects in regards to my edits. There is no point if you can't see the logic of my argument. Surely using your rule of thumb, no one should have "born in Bradford" included in their info either. Craven is actually a ward in Bradford Met, so i guess that's a little more confusing as i don't believe this Thornton lies within the Craven ward boundary. Thornton in Craven is near Bradford but nearer to Skipton. I'll be answering any other questions in regards to this insert on the Bradford discussion page.BradfordPal1 (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craven is a district in North Yorkshire.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]