Jump to content

User talk:Esemgee/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hi. When you recently edited History of Wetherby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnpike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Settle does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited History of Wetherby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnpike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pickering, North Yorkshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Earthwork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Bird-brained?

I wonder could you explain whether or not you think that a section such as this one is useful, or whether it is "pointless content that adds nothing whatsoever to an understanding of cranes"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Or would you at least agree that this article section might be expanded a little, to include, e.g. The Mabinogion or similar references? Or do you think, as many seem to do, that all "In Popular Culture" = "Trivia"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Huddersfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnpike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Peter Sutcliffe does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! ukexpat (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redcar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Scandinavian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gawthorpe Hall

When you say "read like a guide book copy" in your edit summary here, do you mean "reads like one might expect the National Trust guidebook to read", or "having compared the National Trust guidebook alongside this material, the paraphrasing is too close", or perhaps something else? How much detail do you think it is fair to include in this article? I have given the sources for all the additions I have made as clearly as I can. I'm not sure what would count as a better source than Dean's 1988 guidebook. And I welcome any summarising and re-wording that improves the flow. But I am curious to know what is the level of detail you intend for this article and why. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Settle Rural District

Hi there! I noticed your edit to Settle Rural District, and in my opinion it didn't really improve it. In fact I think it just ruined it, please could you stop making the same edit. Thanks. (TheSimsChicago45 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Apperley Bridge may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • From 1846 until its closure in 1965, [[Apperley Bridge railway station]]]] was situated across the boundary in [[Rawdon, West Yorkshire|Rawdon]].<ref name="Leodis">{{Cite

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wetherby Town Hall

I have reverted the text to the original. Please do not call this vandalism, I do not call your good faith (albeit misguided) edits vandalism. We all have the interests of the page at heart here. The text as I wrote it was well sources and incontrovertibly true as far as the sources go. If you do not agree here, then please start some discourse, I will happily work with you to improve this page should you feel it needs it. As yet, you have yet to point out any flaws with the page in the edits you conducted anonymously and without summary. To avoid getting into an edit war, please refrain from changing the page back and please talk through any issues you feel the page has and I'll gladly try to come to consensus. I will not however accept a decimation of the page without explanation or justification, just because you decree without supporting evidence it to be untrue. I hope I do not appear curt in this matter, thank you. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, might I suggest that any further issues regarding the content of Wetherby Town Hall be conducted on the articles talk page to prevent the discussion spreading across both yours and my talk page. There are aspects of your edits that I would like to build into the page, however the exclusion of much of the notable and researched information that graced the page before is a bridge too far (especially it having not been agreed upon beforehand). I hope any future discussions can be fruitful and without resentment. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
With reference to your latest message on my page, I can not agree with your statement, what's more it seems to be based rather more on your own subjective appraisal of it rather than a constructive break down. If you are interested we can iron out any issues using the talk page, however you will have to outline your specific objections to the original piece. I have copies of all the sources at home and am willing to transpose any quotations in the instance of disagreements over the sources content. As it is, it seems like a decimation without any detailed reasoning. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bramhope Tunnel may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] is plain. It comprises a sandstone horseshoe-shaped arch with rusticated [[voussoir]]s below a [[cornice and [[parapet]].<ref name="South">{{cite web|url=http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bramhope Tunnel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concave. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chariot burial may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Iron Age [[Celt]]ic custom. A tomb from the 4th century BC was discovered in [[La Gorge-Meillet]] ([[Marne]], France.<ref>[http://www.musee-archeologienationale.fr/homes/home_id20392_u1l2.htm Le

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Burton Fleming (archaeological site) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • skeletons, one adult female and an adolescent of indeterminate age<ref name = "Stead, 216-219"/>) and a variety of copper-alloy dress accessories including beads, a brooch and a [[shale]] ring.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Greenwell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[tumulus|barrows]] at [[Danes Graves]] a site of the [[Arras Culture]] of the [[British Iron Age]]) and was subsequently criticized by [[William Harrison-Broadley]] for his poor excavation technique.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Fax facts

I'd quite agree that sport section needed a bit of copy-editing. Many thanks. But I had thought that the record attendance of (at least) 102,575, at the 1954 Challenge Cup replay, between Halifax and Warrington, was pretty notable? Is it not still a world record? Or was that just made up? It's the sort of thing you might even see at DYK. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

p.s. do you ever reply to Talk Page questions? Or is it better for me to raise at the article Talk Page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I see all of your edits have been reverted. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peter Sutcliffe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • //www.wearsideonline.com/wearside_jack.html Wearsideonline.com]; retrieved 25 October 2010</ref>)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heysham Port railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douglas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Lyke Wake Walk

Hello Esemgee

I have undone your edits of the Lyke Wake Walk page. Sorry but the edits you have made: (a) are not compatible with the terminology of the Lyke Wake Clubs and as used by those who undertake the Walk (as given in the many references I have added to the article); (b) have introduced inconsistencies into the article (c) the use of capitals in the edits that I have done have been carefully chosen to distinguish doing the walk under the 'challenge' conditions that qualify for membership of the Club and doing the Walk outside the challenge conditions and (d) have removed carefully considered emphasis made in the edits I made. I have been doing this walk for over 40 years and I am reasonably familiar with the route and the culture of the Walk & its Clubs & have tried to communicate these in the edits I have made. Regards Ian B Evans 12:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomTyke (talk • contribs)

I have undone your edits which are not compatible with an encyclopedia article. This is NOT the "Club" but is written for a wider audience. The article was badly written and capital letters were not used properly. It is irrelevant how many times you have completed the walk, what matters is that it is written in a style compatible with an encyclopedia. You are not the only editor who carefully considers his edits. I will copy this exchange to the talk page of the article. Esemgee (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You win - I can't be bothered - your improvements have introduced 12 factual errors & that's only at first reading and removed much relevant information. I can't see the point of having a separate page for the Lyke Wake Club(s) (if that's what you're implying). I don't think you're style of English has anything to recommend itself above that of previous editors. For info I don't represent either of the Lyke Wake Clubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomTyke (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is not written in the style of the "Club" it is written in plain English. I'm not implying anything, just making it readable and accessible to people who don't like to see constantly repeated phrases and improperly used capital letters. An article about the club written in the same style would require a similar copyedit. The club is entitled to have its own idiosyncrasies but they should not be used not in an encyclopedic article. Its a pity you are taking your bat home because the information is fine. An encyclopedia article doesn't contain everything ever mentioned, it is a broad summary of relevant information in plain English. Esemgee (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lyke Wake Walk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ravenscar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Places of worship in Leeds

Hi there, I have reverted your edit with regards to the site of Wetherby Town Hall in 'demolished places of worship'; this is the site of a former church and so it worthy of inclusion under the criteria of the section and is not in any way misleading. Kind regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Esemgee. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Places of worship in Leeds. Reversion of edits

Hi there,

I ave reverted the edits you have made removing images of the sites of the demolished places of worship. The column is entitled 'site now'; and so the pictures are not in any way misleading. We have a very small number of images of now demolished places of worship so it seems obvious to me we could make no meaningful column given the lack of content. Please do not remove the pictures again; if you feel these edits are of a constructive nature by all means seek consensus from the wider community. The edits seem to me to not take into account the purpose of the column and so without a wider consensus I shall maintain the pictures in their place.

Kind regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Maintain whatever you like, it is one of the worst lists on the encyclopedia. Esemgee (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Geoffrey Lupton

For some reason you have performed several edits to the page on Geoffrey Lupton. In no case have you stated the reason for the edit and you have used your editing to change the meaning of what was there to something quite wrong without quoting any references. Please can you undo your edits to save us having to rewrite the whole entry - unless you can justify any of it with a proper reference. Gardencitizen (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, even me! You do not own this article and it did need some improvement and I do not have to explain myself for editing it. I apologise for the lack of edit summaries, I usually forget. If you explain where I changed the meaning I will be happy to change it but I will not undo them all as they were done to improve the style and make it more readable. I don't think I have changed the meaning, I might have cut something out but the style was awkward. Could you explain who "us" is? Editors are not supposed to act in groups see WP:MEAT. Esemgee (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"us" refers to the family members who wrote and edited the entry which you have spent a lot of effort in changing. Most Wiki entries have examples of people exercising their right to edit whether they know anything or not. What are your qualifications for knowing better? As a couple of examples of what I regard as changing the meaning I offer this original text:

He returned from the War to continue being an Arts and Crafts all-rounder as Gimson, knowing he was about to die, had passed on the task of building the Memorial Library at Bedales School.

You have changed it to: After the war Lupton returned to work for Gimson who had passed on the task of building the Memorial Library at Bedales School.

We did not say he returned to work for Gimson and he did not. We said that the dieing Gimson passed the task on to him. FYI Lupton left the army on 11 June 1919 and Gimson died on 12 August and from surviving correspondance dated earier that year one could say that Gimson felt he was passing his whole work on

Elsewhere we had: In 1948 he was again drawn to emigrate to Africa (this time to Southern Rhodesia), where he was engrossed in building up yet another farm when he met his death, in dealing with a bull, on 30 December 1949

You changed it to: In 1948 he emigrated to Southern Rhodesia where he built up another farm. He died dealing with a bull on 30 December 1949

OK you saved space by precising what was there but he was building up the farm, he had not finished by any means, and to use "died dealing with a bull" is a strange form of words for the fatal accident. Both this and the previous passage are taken verbatim from the cited references and I therefore suggest that the Wikipedia requirement to use referenced material is better served in the original version. Gardencitizen (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Gardencitizen, you are very wrong to construct an "us and them" dispute at this article, or at any other article for that matter. In fact, as a "family member" it might be argued you have a WP:Conflict of Interest there. Your suggested individual reverts may each have merit, but that is no good reason to demand that another editor, who has edited in perfectly good faith, should revert wholesale just because they are not part of your little gang. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC) p.s. content discussions are usually best addressed at the article Talk page, whether other interested editors can contribute. So I'd advise you to take your concerns to Talk:Geoffrey Lupton. Thanks.
Gardencitizen I advise you to assume good faith. The article was a list of short paragraphs written in an awkward style. Now it isn't. Please don't edit articles about people close to you it makes it hard for you to remain neutral. Both this and the previous passage are taken verbatim from the cited references is also not allowed. The article should not be copied from sources but should be written in your own words. This is called WP:COPYVIO. Esemgee (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Esemgee. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Esemgee. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't attack me

Hi your recent revert and calling me inappropriate for reverting was to me uncalled for. I have no issue with you reverting but don't call my questioning of authenticity inappropriate please. It makes me see it as a swipe at my editing skills and asking for authenticity. RailwayJG (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That was for the Dewsbury and City of Wakefield reverts you have done recently. Calling them waffle and inappropriate. Words like that feel like insults. RailwayJG (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

If your edits were inappropriate I will call them as such. I called the edit inappropriate, not you, no attack. Waffle is what it is. 16:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Batley

Your link to Kirklees Observatory seems broken. PamD

PamD Thank you. Esemgee (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Still not working - but I found the page you're wanting, copied the URL into my search bar and it still failed: it shows the top dropdown menu set to "Parishes, towns, North and South Kirklees" but leaves the second one blank. I think all you can do is to give a link to the page and say "From "Available areas" select "Batley M.B." ". It's like trying to link to a list of listed buildings in a parish from the NHLE list: seems obvious but just doesn't work. PamD 17:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see, PamD where would you put the note? I've never done that before. Esemgee (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
How about this?[1] Hmm, that seems to say 48,730, which isn't the figure you're referencing. Ouch. PamD 22:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
PamD, thank you very much, I have no idea where that figure came from, I had a lot of tabs open so it must have been from one of them but at least it's right now, I hope! Esemgee (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Population profile: Selection: Batley M.B. Geo-type: Parish, Towns, North and South Kirklees". Kirklees Observatory. Kirklees Council. Retrieved 30 June 2021. Select "Batley M.B." from "Available Areas"

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Howley Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morley. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

LOL

You know, you really do make me laugh out loud. From reading your user talk page and looking at the edits that you've made to other people's entries, I can see that you've personally donated a great amount of your life's work to editing Wikipedia. Really, it's as though you have engaged on a one man mission to edit an encyclopedia, which must have consumed sooo much time. It's almost as though you've chosen, on some level, to police Wikipedia as way to reflect a superior intellect. It's all there for everyone to see. And, that's funny! You see, whilst you're engaged in some damn idealistic crusade, those same factors that make Wikipedia a search engine superstar, also bring the legitimacy of its content into question. And, because of its open contribution model, no true academic researcher feels comfortable citing Wikipedia as a resource. In fact, any reputable institution of H.E. actively dissuades its students from using it, and won't allow reference to it. So, for all your hard work, your efforts are in vain, as the hard truth is that Wikipedia will NEVER have any academic credibility, and neither will you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.114.186 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be on a crusade to have this material included in unsuitable articles because...well unlike you, I don't presume to know why. Virtually the same information is to be found in the Wentbridge and Barnsdale articles which is apparently where it belongs. The very reason Wikipedia will never have credibility is because badly written, improperly referenced material is dumped into articles whether it is relevant to that article or not. Perhaps you could remove your recent reversions from Wakefield (the city) and City of Wakefield which is about the modern metropolitan county. Happy editing! 00:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Dewsbury

Hi Esmegee I'm probably the last person on wiki you want to engage with. So I'll just keep it brief. I have readded minster to the lead of Dewsbury. I have also added two sources that use the term including a book titled A Trouble in Paradise and it uses minster town for Dewsbury. It got it around same time as Halifax did and it's noted so I've readded it. If you wish to challenge it before removing it. Happily engage it on the pages talkpage but some websites and people do refer to Dewsbury as a minster town along with Rotherham, Doncaster (although it will be a city soon), Beverley and Halifax. So just thought I'd let you know thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, The Price of Paradise (2009). Minor edit thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
First ref is from a site that appears to use WP content. The second ref requires a page number. Who are these "people"? By the way, I don't need permission to edit. Esemgee (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I have added two references as well as maintained the second reference. Unfortunately cannot seem to grab page numbers but I have linked each subheading from both books and Kirklees Cousins. These should be enough to add some clarity. Also, btw never even said you needed permission to edit. I just said instead of removing them on a whim, to just take it to the talk page first. As you know removing and adding and repeating removing becomes disruptive editing. Wasn't been funny but then I know we don't get on so hence why I keep my posts brief and short. Happy editing DragonofBatley (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Esemgee/Archive_1&oldid=1167871704"