While I understand your reason for wanting to correct the misspelling of your user name on the Talkpage for the Norwich article it's not something you should do. Basically editing someone else's comment is forbidden. You can ask the user who wrote the text to correct it but they are not under any obligation to do so. It's all set out here: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#EDIT GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I didn't mean to offend you, I just thought the lighting conditions weren't great. I'm not trying to intimidate or upset you.

All the best! --Menacinghat (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Over is a former borough and area of Winsford in of Cheshire East in Cheshire, England." is not good enough. Please always check your edits. I will correct this one. Thanks. PamD 05:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template ((NHLE)) (or ((National Heritage List for England)) if you want to type it in full) is useful when linking to the NHLE list, as it produces a nice reference in a standard format and also protects the encylopedia should NH ever redesign their database: one change to update the template will fix hundreds of references. And please take the time to retype their "title" so that it isn't in CAPS in our list of references. Thanks. I've fixed this one. PamD 11:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can see Wikipedia has become the new Facebook. Other editors can rollback my edits. Take swipes at me and be able to get their way.

I'm not allowed to contribute unless it suits certain users on here. One or more disagree incomes the reverted edits by DoB. Reasons "unhelpful" "not reliable" "EDITWARRING" and "better quality images and editors who can write good and better articles".

Your unable to do so, DoB because your autistic and your stupid. Your collages are crap, your edits are rubbish and your callings out of those who criticise you is seen as rude and confrontational.

Fine carry on I'm sick of being treated like a scapegoat for allowing other editors to get their way and I mustn't criticise because they have years and thousands of contributions under their belt that makes them more important then me.

Okay...I'm a flea and deserve to be executed.

DragonofBatley (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before you revert my edits here or take issue with me. Maybe put yourself in my position for just a second and think how it must feel to be hounded stalked and unable to be seen as positive amongst the crowd. How hard it is for someone like me with autism. There is no support for this other then through editors who offer help. DragonofBatley (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are feeling upset. Any negativity is towards your edits, not yourself. Several editors have disagreed with your choice of photographs: I wonder whether there are differences in people's colour perception, or their computer/phone software or hardware, which make something look attractive to some editors but grey to others? I have not commented on the removal of "small" and "large" from many lead sentences, though I note that we have Featured Articles which include these words (eg Sale, Greater Manchester and Chew Stoke). But I have noticed that some of your edits leave the article in a garbled or ungrammatical state, with phrases like "area of Winsford in of Cheshire East" and non-sentences without a verb, sometimes starting "Located in...", and I have suggested that you take a little more care to check your edits; I've fixed the problems I've seen. I also thanked you recently when you spotted a mistake you'd made and corrected it, and saw that as a really positive move, that you had checked, noticed, and fixed it. I don't know if you've seen the essay Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors, but it might be helpful. Please calm down, cheer up, and carry on with some careful positive editing. Perhaps carefully create some new articles in area of interest, maybe some of Crouch's missing parishes? Happy editing. PamD 10:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PamD thanks for your message I will actually look to help Crouch Swale with some missing parishes that might hopefully help. I appreciate your message I really do 🐉 DragonofBatley (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou DragonofBatley, if you have any questions please ask me, I won't insult you but I may give you advice on how to improve you contributions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: no worries I know you and PamD are two of the few editors who actually see me as being a positive contributor to Wiki DragonofBatley (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in Lincolnshire like with Willoughby with Sloothby there is User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (2)#Lincolnshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DragonofBatley! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Why does the UK articles have to cover ethnicity in the leads?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DragonofBatley! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Should I just start asking for concensus on my edits?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made on edit today with a summary that included ... and also large is defined for those with 91-100k+ living there. Please could you give me a link to where this is defined. It would be a help if we could refer to the "official" definitions for UK town sizes — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 21:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this Talk page off my watchlist (after frivolously being taken to AN/I) and will take it off again, soonest, but as I edited Mansfield directly after this change referred to above, it reminded me that soon after I wrote a Short description for K in A, it was changed with similar pontificating (you can't change your old username). So....a large town is circa 100K and a small town does not qualify as small, being 25K. So is it just 'a town'? I'd like to see any table of values.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8322/ DragonofBatley (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/understandingtownsinenglandandwales/anintroduction DragonofBatley (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if people did some research you'd likely understand how local government statistics define small and large towns. And for the user who has commented on here about K in A. That was because as said having over 25k did not define it as small and if the population increased to 30k or more. It wouldn't be small then 😉 thanks though for commenting on here even though you had asked me to not engage with you ever again DragonofBatley (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And of course you gave me a reason to take you to Ani for your accusations of canvassing, bullying and intimidation when there was none whatsoever but anyway I'm not gonna bring up anymore on it. All done not digging up old ground not like you be up for burying a hatchet DragonofBatley (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I had ever mentioned that you (or anyone else) should never interact with me - perhaps you are thinking of someone else. I stated I would remove your talkpage and whatever else I could from my watchlist, but I have connections with Irlam where you've just been editing and still see you at the Teahouse, regularly.

I like the caveat from one of the links: "This classification isn’t intended to resolve long-standing disputes about which settlements deserve to be called ‘cities’, ‘towns’, or ‘villages’." I'm gone, don't all cheer at once.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You quite categorically said to not ping you in further discussions @Rocknrollmancer:. When I took you to ani you said to not further discuss with you. That there isn't a lie. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Those two links (House of Commons Library and ONS) are very interesting. The Commons Library one says "The precise division between ‘large’, ‘medium’ and ‘small’ towns is, to a large extent, subjective.". The two have different definitions, even for their own limited purposes, and I'm glad that no-one has tried to use "Other city" or "Medium town" as a description in a Wikipedia article. My feeling is that the original creators and long-term editors of an article about a place are probably those best equipped to choose how it is best described in the lead, rather than an editor parachuting in with an algorithmic approach and deciding that a place is, or isn't, a ""large" village or a "small" town, let alone "market town" (because it has a medieval charter) etc. I suggest that it's often unhelpful for an outsider to mess with these subjective terms. Someone wanting to know the statistical size of a place can see its area, and its population (as long as we define clearly what unit a population figure relates to), but the lead should also convey the spirit of a place. I've held back from commenting on this stream of edits (unless the grammar is mangled), but I suspect that a lot of local editors of various place articles would be pretty unhappy if they spotted the changes. PamD 13:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If I ever used such words as 'not to ping me' I don't recall; the AN/I episode was revdelled/supressed, for unknown reasons. I could ask the responsible admin for reasons/ to check if I uesd those words, but don't expect it would go down well, being trivial. I thought you were the one trying to prevent people people pinging you and trying to block them from messaging, similar to Facebook, you stated.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocknrollmancer: Was this the ANI post you're talking about? Not suppressed or Revdel'd, just archived routinely after a period when no-one had commented, from the look of it. (No idea whether either of you in that discussion told the other not to contact - a little light detective work is one thing, but reading walls of text is too much!) PamD 08:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PamD - I obviously looked too superficially - thanks for your efforts. It wasn't formally closed, either. I did use the comment "Please do not ping me in future.", so kudos there to Dragon for assimilating the gist better than I remembered. I've taken this page off my watchlist, and I'll remove Irlam and Teesville (former neighbour moved to the latter in 2020). There's another I can't recall easily, but I only remember when they occur, rather than trawling through the list.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no issues with you @Rocknrollmancer: not anymore but if you still do me then that's fine. I won't bother you if you don't wish me to. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would probably just avoid any words like "large" etc since they will indeed be subjective, and will vary depend on the source used, better just to state the population. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But "small" and "large" are used in the leads of several Featured Articles, so it is unreasonable to remove them just because you think them inappropriate. I think it best to leave them in place where local editors have chosen to use them. There are always more important things needing doing in most "place" articles: sourcing unsourced statements (or tagging as ((cn)), but not removing longstanding content without warning); clarifying whether population figures are for settlement or parish; updating 2001 and 2011 census refs which don't point to Nomis but are dead links. PamD 20:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Bawtry

added a link pointing to Great North Road

Reepham, Lincolnshire

added a link pointing to Church

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DragonofBatley! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Greater Manchester articles, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind that I changed the title of the new section you added to UK Geography. Somewhere it the MOS says we shouldn't do that because it makes it too difficult to write links like wotsis#face if 'face' is itself a link. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS, FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the MOS applies to talk pages, where links are very often used in section headings. PamD 23:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, it doesn't. But that doesn't take away the problem of creating links to that section, if ever needed. In article space, it is not allowed: on talk pages it is just poor practice. Ok, I admit it, I was being a wikignome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By coincidence I've just experienced another related problem, not involving DoB: a talk page section had a link to a draft as its title but the draft being discussed wasn't linked in the section (just mentioned as "this draft") and on my phone I couldn't easily get to the draft, no link available to click as section heading not displayed. So it's important to link in the text of a post, whether or not also linking in the section heading. PamD 06:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Barnsley, replacing the gallery by a collage with an incorrect caption, have been reverted. If you want to add a collage, you need to get the caption right. You had the same problem with Doncaster, and you can't expect other editors to keep correcting your edits for you. Note also that there are messages on your user talk page at Commons regarding the files there. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Each photo has been credited and put in order. I put the captions in the correct order. So please tell me how I correct the captions. Cause I don't know how. DragonofBatley (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And also I don't expect other editors to correct my edits thanks please don't use assumptions like that Mr.Biddulph DragonofBatley (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted it now cheers DragonofBatley (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not at all clear to me as there are seem to be seven items separate by commas (is "college and skyline" part of a title along with "Town Hall" or not - either would be logical), and "from top left" doesn't tell me whether to read in rows or go clockwise. If one of your captions needs a comma, it might be better to use semicolons to separate the list items. (I personally really dislike collages anyway and feel that the infobox ought to have one iconic image of the town, suitable for seeing on a mobile phone, rather than half a dozen postcard images too small to convey anything much, but that's just my personal preference, as collages seem to be fashionable unfortunately). PamD 08:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As for "expecting other editors to correct...": other editors will correct blatant mistakes they find in the encyclopedia (ungrammatical sentences, inaccurate captions, etc) to revert damage to the encyclopedia. Perhaps DB really means "you can't expect other editors to keep tolerating the need to correct your edits for you for the encyclopedia's sake". PamD 08:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PamD just made a slight trim to the caption for collage to say just town hall. I think the collage I made adds some more to Barnsley and given the vibrant colours in them. It looks quite nice. Imo. I think following collages used for towns like Doncaster Rotherham etc. It adds some nice locations around the town. I visit Barnsley to see some friends living near Wombwell. The town is vibrant and I of course did not rush the collage just had a look for really nice standing out ones. I get what David says but I have never ever expected other editors to take issue with edits I make. I have to address my Ripon collage today I know that but that's pretty much it don't see any issues other the I put a few photos in wrong order in the infobox below collage DragonofBatley (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The carelessness doesn't stoP: look at this: if you think that is acceptable, please think again. PamD 10:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a census figure is given for a parish or a ward, please do not change it to say it is the population of a village, as you did in Old Whittington and in Brimington: the two are not always the same. It would be more useful to spend your time updating the population source as both these had dead links to the old census data: I have updated them to link to NOMIS, as well as correcting your inaccurate changes. PamD 08:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating St Matthew's Church, Walsall (note new title), but please take more care.

• It has an apostrophe. Yes, it is the church of St Matthew. There are not multiple saints Matthew. The church website and all the sources use an apostrophe (OK, not in the logo on the church home page at https://www.stmatthewswalsall.co.uk/, but it does then say "Welcome to St. Matthew's Walsall").

• It is grade II* listed, not grade II. That's quite a difference - there are vast numbers of grade II buildings, but II* is a much more prestigious listing. You called it grade II in both the text and the infobox.

• You used some odd hyphens in "Grade-II" and "Built-in" (like a wardrobe?).

• I don't think this counts as a church completed in 1220: it was entirely rebuilt in 1820-1821, and incorporates some remnants of the earlier church on the site.

So please take more care when contributing to this encyclopedia. Some of your information was just plain wrong (the grade II), some was plain ungrammatical (the lost apostrophe).

You complain about editors complaining about your edits: the answer is to take more care and just get things right. Please. I've fixed what I can in this case. There is also a weird thing about sorting order for churches: in some categories they are sorted by placename: I've added sort keys which I think will match the existing order within those categories, though I agree with you that the sort key should be the article title for general use.) PamD 15:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]