Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, JamesLewisBedford01! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! You seem to have an interest in the recent death of Elizabeth II, so I wanted to invite to the WikiProject of Current Events new task force The London Bridge Task Force, which will be working on improving all the articles around the death of Elizabeth II. A task force is similar to a WikiProject, which is where you can communicate with other editors who all have the same goal, which is improving all the articles around a specific topic. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, just wondering why you nuked the entire attendance section for the first qualifying round on 2022–23 FA Cup qualifying rounds? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bugger, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I was changing the format standard to help the look of references but must have deleted it when I did 1Q. I will add them back chees! JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem! I didn't want to start an edit war. Glad it was just an error. Thanks so much for adding them back (though I think you added an extra column somewhere)! ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fixed JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		For all your great work editing and consensus building on articles relating to the Death of Elizabeth II I bestow upon you this Royal Barnstar. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't copy my comments to other discussions, and don't get involved in discussions that you have no interest in to try to smear me.

As you said in one of your comments, you're not a very experienced editor. You seem to be getting quite exercised about small details and formatting questions, and you seem to be in an unnecessary hurry. I would suggest you relax and wait, see if other editors respond to your discussion points. // Hippo43 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but this was in good faith. Guides on trying to build consensus in content disputes encourage editors to gather discussion from User talk pages and copy them on article talk pages when they are relevant in order to make it easier to follow along to content disputes. I copied your "I disagree" reply on User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2022/September#30 input onto the article talk page section on that aformentioned 3O. I agreed with the Third Opinion but I was copying your comment into the discussion to show that you disagreed with it so we could document the Third Opinion not resolving the dispute so we could then move on to the RfC that is now up. Responses will now roll in on the issue and is now just a matter of waiting for up to 30 days to see the contributions of others. No one is in a rush. This RfC has only now appeared after this content removal of yours had been going on for 4 days after it became apparent that it wasn't going to be resolved naturally through gradual editing and attempted rephrasing on my behalf (which is fine—it is why we moved it along). JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your intervention at the Crown Jeweller discussion was not in good faith. I hope my position on this is very clear. // Hippo43 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not a very experienced editor and welcome any tips. Getting "quite exercised about small details and formatting questions" is quite bad faithed and aggro however. I am seeking to build consensus and resolve disputes. One could equally say that your revision of reverting "answered on" to "questioned" is trivial but that doesn't matter because it is about making the article better and in response–rather than constantly revert–I acknowledged and took on board your edits and rephrased multiple times only to be met with your stonewalling before you then suddenly decided without reason to remove mention of part of the content that had already pre-existed and you had already written around previously and despite it already existing then claiming the onus was on me to seek resolution for it in an awful WP:DRNC edit summary—but that I nevertheless followed anyway. My "intervention" was responding to a section specifically about you by an editor talking about actions you had taken where I merely provided possible further background (even with the acknowledgment that I could not speak for that particular article) on similar actions. It is through these discussions that editors might explore the possibility of seeking WP:ANI. It was hardly a "smear" to discuss in a section specifically about your conduct. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an inexperienced editor I would welcome any engagement into what it is I can actually improve rather than half-arsed attempts to even follow along with discussion as is evidenced by remarks such as "don't copy my comments to other discussions" in reply to passing on your response to an appropriate channel (and literally being helpful). JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^It is particularly important to note this because you have now tried to hide mention of this in the Third Opinion discussion in Specthis revert. Please do not do this again as it may actively undermine the current RfC as it could make it look like I didn't bother to see if the Third Opinion resolved the dispute when it was the case that I routinely notified you in and you responded that you still disagreed when I prompted you. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just FYI. Would hate for that to be misinterpreted, we all know how it looks but I'm sure thats not what you meant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This "wow just wow" edit summary has been incredibly bad faith. Not a too-distant look in the edit history would show how the first mention of this content was added BY ME in the paragraph ABOVE black twitter. Then in your flurry of non-summarised edits I mistakenly believed you had moved it to your new redundant political section at the end of the article. It had actually turned out that you did not move it but actually had just repeated the content in a less descriptive, redundant manner. This confusion can be seen by the fact that I literally duplicated it in my edit in the paragraph below to where it should have been. Instead of correcting the edit by removing it for it "being duplicated" the paragraph above you have implied this. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content moved was to eliminate duplication and provide it with a better home to the very things it is referring to. You mention in the talk page that these moves did not make sense but as per edit summaries, all this content suited the context of social media better than other political section that doesn’t define anything. The second section to this article was also “political” prior to it being changed somewhere by someone and there are "political" talking points in it that makes another "poltical" section needless. As per edit summaries, this content lacked any specific answer to Who? and instead treated things in a vague there was x response in a country (full stop). When breaking down the context of what it is this content was actually referring to I added it to the necessary section to improve its description.

For example, your content on the Mau Mau rebellion that had already been discussed in Social Media (using the same source that specifically talks about it trending). This change got rid of repetition in the article by removing the one that was a singular non-descriptive statement, and kept the one that was included in a wider paragraph about the general public’s response about the legacy of the British Empire in Commonwealth countries.

Another example was the criticism of India’s declaration of mourning which I moved from, again a standalone entry, to being underneath the political responses in India, in particular the already existing content about its announcement. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James, I've removed your edit request. You cannot make edit requests while you are blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. Thank you. I will wait for it to be served before adding my reply to the talk page discussion concerning this. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JamesLewisBedford01, you appear to have violated WP:3rr at Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II. Please self-revert or you will likely be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

they haven't been reverts. I am dissecting apart your content and moving the content to sections that already exist because this section as per previous reasons is many things plus ultimately redundant. again, please state your disagreement to the reasons I gave for moving. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

feel free to engage with this in the many talk sections we have open. consensus through gradual removal. only outright reverts have been from you. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you just described is reverts, see WP:REVERT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not reverting an action. Making an edit does not automatically mean you reverted it back to an old revision. But anyway, we can discuss which of our edits did or didn't count as "reverting" or we can actually try and talk about content instead.

To state again, I have argued that the Political section is redundant because there is already a political responses and all this new section does is cherry pick anti-monarchial sentiment that exists already in other sections and as I have shown in some of my edits where I dissected apart individual sentences, the descriptive features of this content has got LESS because it is being isolated on its own simply as a statement with no supporting expansion or context provided. This is my opinion on why I believe this new section you have shoehorned at the end should be splintered off to work around what already exists in the article. What is your opinion on why you believe this new section is in fact better for the article? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of those is a 3rr exception see, WP:3RRNO. Also note that while you might view all of this through a monarchial/anti-monarchial lens I don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not about a lens. I will rephrase. They all reflect on the future of the monarchy. Again, all stuff that is already mentioned in previous sections. I repeat, what does this add that there isn't already and how is not redundant as another political responses section. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what in there is the valid exemption to the 3rr violation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok so you don't want to try and improve and build consensus then, just maintain status quo. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't violate WP:3RR, when you do that you spit on the consensus building process. Either self revert or be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring with an open and shut case. Your call. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving individual sentences and moving them into better contexts isn't going back on a previous action it is doing something else with new reasons given. The edits are jumbled up as I tackled each sentence in that short section individually and some content was also lost during an edit conflict when moved some sentences was moved back to the standalone one liners. I gather that you want these sentences to be moved back into this section of yours, and if you want to do that propose a previous revision that you want to see back. "Self revert" is not really that specific and is also not likely to manage to restore this revision on its own. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be logging off soon so if will have to wait for me to restore a previous edit but it you leave it for when I get back I will seek to it. Better yet, if it is restored through editing I'll remember to leave it be. For the future, it might be worth adopting a Bold, Revert, Discuss approach when you make changes like this to a structure and it is reverted by an editor that has been watching the article closely for a period of time. It speeds up content disputes and is a lot more effective in consensus building when the response to being reverted is to discuss why you disagree instead of reverting back. Furthermore, if an edit is a change not a revert...discuss it! Throwing "you are a reverter" at someone so as to demand that they cease immediately and..."revert" the edit back once more does not really get us anywhere in improving the content. It is a waste of time. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too late, already went to the noticeboard (which you appear to have noticed hence the change of heart if not acceptance that you reverted). You haven't sought to "discuss" it on the talk page since 03:25 yet you've made a lot of edits since then here. You can't abandon a discussion and then accuse the other party of not discussing things with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As per your report at WP:AN, and my comments there, you seem to have an unnecessary sense of urgency that is disruptive to other editors. You are bludgeoning talk pages, rushing to edit where there isn't consensus, and generally, being really, really bad at collaborating. Wikipedia is a team effort. Your editing is odd, to say the least, and honestly I find it difficult to believe you haven't edited here before, as you've managed to find WP:AN so soon. But regardless, if you come back with the same rushed, bludgeoning style, you will be blocked for disruptive editing, likely for an indefinite period of time. You are not off to a good start. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It had been something I vaguely remember coming across reading various info pages in the past and a term I could recall, but since you brought this up previously in your WP:AN bludgeoning linked reply I have been taking your contribution on board. I have also reviewed my activity on the Talk:Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II page in question too.

  Following this, I would only add that on this bludgeoning there has not been any replying "to every comment that is contrary to [my] position" as you have suggested in the most recent reply on the AN. The voluntary "I tried to look at the issue on that talk page, but gave up because I didn't want to pour through dozens of long, drawn out comments to get to the locus of the dispute" is a poor response as the "locus" is explained and is the section header. I have replied to two votes on the RfC—The very first one which identified that my RfC summary was not clear and we agreed to change it—and the second one where I notified the editor of this change as the timing of it occurred in between this modification.

  In addition on that page (away from the "issue" singular), I started a discussion on the inclusion of reinserting another user's entry on Black Twitter that someone had removed which I then implemented only after 5 days since the last response (that I did not reply to). Further, I have started two unrelated, non-disputed, (currently) single comment discussions explaining particular additions I made to the article to open for potential discussion and a third proposal (again unrelated) that hasn't had any non-involved comments. Any other comment of mine can then only be found in singular replies to numerous consensus-building discussions started by other editors. That is the extent of all my contributions to that talk page. I haven't engaged to all the different topics but I am one of two regular users on that talk page with over 20 comments. Like many others, I have added a varying range of content to the main space article that on its own stacks up only as a minute percentage of the vast array of user contributions since the beginning, and like a smaller handful of others, have been intrigued to keep tabs on to this ITN hot topic that has been very active and enjoyable.

  Further, on "urgency". I have been very active recently. On the particular "issue", the dispute originates on 15 September. An RfC was only submitted two days later after considerable activity to first see if the issue could be resolved through rephrasing and gradual edits, then talk page discussion, then a 3O, before it became apparent that disagreement remained. I haven't started an RfC as an immediate response to being reverted. I have been cautious to do so, taking note when reviewing the WP:RfC#Before starting the process that requesting editor's time is a privilege because "editor time is valuable".

  On "[my] editing is odd, to say the least". I require more specifics for it to be of use to improving. Aside from this current event, my main activity has been coverage of and adding content to live football competitions, particularly 2022–23 FA Cup qualifying rounds and 2022–23 FA Trophy. Recently, I spent a whole lot of time changing the look of some of its tables, primarily concerned about how it looks when reference numbers are added. This often meant adding things like {left|)) and {right|} to certain rows over hundreds of columns. I note this because there are edit histories of thousands of character changes in consecutive edits and could seem strange.

  Finally, on it being difficult to believe I haven't edited here prior to this account. There isn't a whole lot I can do or a whole point to trying to prove anything but I would say I don't really think it is that hard to find surely? For example in the Wikipedia:Five Pillars which is linked to me in my welcome at the top of this page, WP:5P4 links the page to alert users to follow the dispute resolution procedures—and then the lead on that page links and specifies "how issues of conduct may be addressed at the incidents noticeboard". Likewise, such are my astounding expertise, I incorrectly submitted that request to WP:AN instead of WP:ANI. I feel the problem here is activity history can only tell you what users are editing. There's no history about what people may have read or glance through.

  I do thank you for your suggestions for when I come back. My initial plans will be to reply to a request asked of me in a talk section and to add to this story that happened https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/sep/18/celtic-fans-sing-anti-royal-family-song-during-minutes-applause-for-the-queen to the sport section of the article. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I read about two paragraphs then gave up. This is one of the problems. You need to learn how to be concise. No one, and I mean no one, at Wikipedia is going to read through comments this long when you are putting multiples on a page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you have read how you said you "gave up" looking for the locus of a discussion found in the section header. Either engage with it or don't, no one is forcing you to. A user has commented on my editing and I have responded. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've been using links when I think you mean to be using diffs, see Help:Diff for how to make those. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thanks for this! I use Special:Diff/, Special:Permalink/ (as I also did in my replies to you on the #Kenyans on twitter =/= Black Twitter section of this talk page) or I might just link them in a [x] format. Luckily it has not too much difference and you can navigate to the diff from the permalink old version edit summary at the top of the page, which I also explained in the reply anyway should you not have time for them. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for your recent comment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi 74.231.235.7 (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you moved this article twice, you left all incoming links pointing to the first redirect created (with the wrong dash type); this meant over 500 incoming links were broken for readers, which is not ideal in the middle of a tournament. Please make sure you clean up messes like this after you make them.. Number 57 12:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have made a similar mess for the women's tournament... Number 57 12:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I am aware this is a process I was beginning to follow as per MV#POST yesterday but could not complete at once. See my contributions. The first dash type was noted and corrected as per edit summaries. Same problem also exists for 2021 Rugby League World Cup – Wheelchair tournament

Move was done as per Talk:2021 Rugby League World Cup - Men’s tournament#Article revamp proposal to reflect the new change that all three are running in parallel and equally for the first time. So that the 2021 Rugby League World Cup did not mean the men's. Main focus is to fix the men's links as per WP:USURPTITLE by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You needed to fix the double redirect as the very first thing and should not have left it like this. Number 57 12:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing this. Can you point me to where I can see how to do this for the future? by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind, found it as WP:2R. Thanks again for cleaning this up. by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies. by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 2021 Rugby League World Cup (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dan arndt (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Rugby League World Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Final. 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) 06:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JamesLewisBedford01! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 03:40, Saturday, November 5, 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2021 Rugby League World Cup qualifying (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]