Hi Jameslovesavril! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)
Hi there - just an observation that the thinking behind some of your edits (e.g. changing "large hamlet" into "small village" and similar), while not necessarily wrong, isn't entirely obvious. It would help if you left an "edit summary" when changing an article - see WP:ES for more information. Otherwise you're likely to find that unexplained edits, even when made in good faith as I suspect your Windy Hill change was, get reverted or attract comments like the one above (which seems unnecessarily aggressive) - don't take it personally. If you need any help or advice, I'll do my best. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, you know you said you'll help me, do you mean help me with things I want to edit? If so then thanks.
No, I don't mean I'll help you edit particular articles - but I'm happy to answer questions about editing or point you to the appropriate help pages or tutorials. But the information is all there if you take the time to look. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To date 99% of your edits have been reverted by experienced reviewers and administrators. Although they are currently being reverted as Good Faith edits the amount of time editors are spending correcting them is moving into the area of them being classed as Disruptive editing. Please take some time to read the Manual of Style before further editing. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what exactly do you mean by 'the way I edit'?
Jameslovesavril, you should really read WP:VERIFY and WP:ES. If you don't cite sources for your changes, or explain why you making them in an edit summary, you'll find your changes repeatedly challenged or reverted. It's nothing personal, it's just the way Wikipedia works. It's not just a question of being "right", but of being able to back up your claims from a reputable source. If you include citations with any new material, and add an edit summary to explain why you're making a change, you'll get a lot less grief. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by, 'backing up' my claims? I'm not acting stupid but I don't know how to add photos and things if that's what you mean by 'backing up'.
No, I don't mean adding photos (though that's easy enough if you take the trouble to read the copious help that's available). I mean adding a citation, and explaining what you've done (and why) in the edit summary before you save your changes. Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, but it's best to go cautiously, read the (plentiful) guidance (click "Help" in the left- hand margin to get started) and try to follow the site's conventions. As for "the way you edit", I'm sorry to be frank, but:
everybody makes mistakes, but your edits do tend to be rather careless (note the spelling of boundary, for example);
although I note that you've started adding edit summaries sometimes, not all of your edits are explained;
some of your responses here and elsewhere have been rather aggressive, and you've deleted or overwritten other people's comments so that the remaining comments sometimes have no context and don't make sense any more;
you don't follow basic policies (such as following your comments with ~~~~ so that they are signed and dated);
some of your edits suggest a rather dogmatic approach to (1) settlements (hamlets/villages are not easily defined and your changes from one to the other seem arbitrary) and (2) county boundaries (Wikipedia's stated policy, given at WP:UKCOUNTIES, is that "we do not take the minority view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries"). In a short article, writing at length in the first few sentences about the county that a hill used to be in isn't really proportionate, and rightly or wrongly suggests that you may have an axe to grind about traditional and modern administrative regions.
Take your time, stick to uncontroversial edits until you know the ropes, read and obey the policies, listen to advice and you'll be fine. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite advice and requests to stop your persistent Disruptive editing, such as your attempts to incorrectly move locations out of Greater Manchester, appear to indicate you have an agenda that is not compatible with the consensus of other editors working on this project. Such editing is nothing more than vandalism. If you cannot accept that these referenced locations and descriptions are correct, as per the concensus of other more expeienced editors, then you are clearly unable to work cooperatively and should refrain from editing, until you are able to do so. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the way your talking to me is totally aggressive. I moved locations out of Greater Manchester because it's right and you know it is. I didn't exactly move tem out, I said the historic boundries. Also tell me one that I edited?
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.
Just reinforcing the above message. You may personally think that hills are mountains - but what you personally think doesn't matter. If you can find a reliable source that describes either the Pennines or Cheviots as "mountains", please let other editors know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:V and WP:RS. All information on Wikipedia needs to be based on what reliable sources say about the matter - not what individual editors believe to be true. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your vandalism to the Edale article has been reverted. Edale is in Derbyshire, so removing that fact is wasting editing done by other people. When some 99% of your edits are reverted by other more experienced people you surely have to realise that you are not helping the project progress. Richard Harvey (talk)
Jameslovesavril, now try reading WP:EDITWAR. If someone reverts your edit (as happened at Edale) and you disagree, make your point on the Talk page (click "Talk" at the top of the article) and discuss it; don't just revert back - this is called edit warring and it's unproductive. We're trying to assume good faith, but you still aren't following advice, such as adding edit summaries, including citations for your edits, or signing your comments, so it's hardly surprising that people are getting frustrated with your editing patterns. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you have created a sockpuppet, admitted - indeed flaunted - on your talk page. This is not allowed. I have blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely; your block of one week is a warning; it will be much longer the next time.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
