User talk:DragonofBatley

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sutton Coldfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shenstone.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Scroll of the Dragon

Hello, DragonofBatley. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Scroll of the Dragon".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley, County Durham: what info to include in section 'Transport links'?

Greetings, DragonofBatley.

I propose to start a topic about this on the Stanley talk page so that we can discuss it. OK for you?

Cheers, —Protalina (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DragonofBatley: What do you think of the idea of putting the now-closed railway stations in History? Protalina (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with it but I've also included the nearest railway stations to the town. DragonofBatley (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, shall I delete the historical ones from Transport links? I already put them in history, and will later add a citation for the closure date. Protalina (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added citation, but don't have a copy of Butt's Directory, so only have page no. for West Stanley (from the article). Do you know page no. for Annfield Plain? Thanks, —Protalina (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to disambiguation pages

Please check your page creations like Stillington railway station to make sure that all your links go to the right pages. I've fixed your two links to the Stillington disambiguation page.

There is an easy way to avoid linking to disambiguation pages: if you go to "Preferences", "Gadgets", and look under "Appearance" you'll see "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" towards the bottom of the section. Select that tickbox, and whenever you Preview a page you'll be able to see whether you've accidentally linked to a disambiguation page.

If you aren't using that gadget, then just take more care to check every link you add to make sure it's correct. Thanks. PamD 09:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A thought: if Stillington line is worth a red link, perhaps add it to List_of_closed_railway_lines_in_the_United_Kingdom and redirect it there? PamD 09:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage

Please read WP:GNG. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All of your railway station articles that I redirected fail to meet this standard. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No appropriate discussions need to be undertaken before a full redirect. That's how wikipedia works DragonofBatley (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Demons Bridge railway station for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Demons Bridge railway station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demons Bridge railway station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Stillington railway station for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stillington railway station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stillington railway station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Saltersgate Cottage railway station for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saltersgate Cottage railway station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saltersgate Cottage railway station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Simpasture railway station for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Simpasture railway station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpasture railway station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that you have made an edit summary or a comment that did not appear to be appropriate, civil, or otherwise constructive, and it may have been removed. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Geschichte (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC) This is not the way to go forward. Geschichte (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Stillington railway station. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Stockton (S&D) railway station. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. It appears that you created Stockton (S&D) railway station on 4 June by copying other editors' work from the article Stockton railway station (S&D) which had existed since 2022. That is not how to move an article. Any further such copying will be considered as disruptive editing. Thanks. PamD 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

Please do not move articles to different titles which do not comply with WP:ENGLANDPLACE, ie Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#England. This says "Where disambiguation is required, placename, ceremonial county is normally used." You have recently moved Stanhope, County Durham to Stanhope, England and Halifax, West Yorkshire to Halifax, United Kingdom. Both have been reverted as undiscussed moves. In both cases the existing title was correct. "Only one in England" is not a reason to change the disambiguation: placename disambiguation doesn't work in quite the same way as normal disambiguation, but follows specific rules (and it was incorrect for Stanhope, as there is a Stanhope, Kent).

Continuing to move articles to incorrect titles will be considered as disruptive editing. PamD 07:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Stockton (S&D) railway station

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Stockton (S&D) railway station. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Stockton (Stockton & Darlington Railway) railway station. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Stockton (Stockton & Darlington Railway) railway station. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. PamD 07:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above, of course, is the standard automatically-generated message. But it boils down to: I've nominated the duplicate for speedy deletion. If you were trying to do a cut-and-paste page move, please remember that that isn't the way to move a page to a better title. If you think a page needs moved and can't do it simply, use WP:RM. You appear to have copied other people's work into this new page, with no acknowledgement, and that's not the way to do it. Thanks. PamD 10:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just discovered the helpful Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) or WP:UKSTATION which states that mid-title disambiguation is now deprecated: I think it may have been an earlier convention. So Stockton (Stockton & Darlington Railway) railway station was not a good choice of title. PamD 10:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging

Just for your information, your ping in this edit will not have worked: for a ping to work properly you need to sign your post in the same edit as the ping is added. It's easy to forget. (@Pi.1415926535: notifying Pi... of the missed ping.) PamD 16:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Asaph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holywell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Please remember not to link dates, per MOS:UNLINKDATES. I've unlinked them in St Edmund's Church, Lincoln and St Lawrence's Church, Lincoln, and also added the articles to the dab pages at St Edmund's Church and St Lawrence's Church, which will make it easier for readers to find them. Thanks. PamD 07:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Lowestoft

added links pointing to Gunton and Corton

Great Yarmouth

added a link pointing to Bradwell

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please note WP:ENGLANDPLACE. PamD 18:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to St Thomas Church, Swansea has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. PamD 21:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kirton, Lincolnshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spalding.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

While editors have very considerable latitude regarding material on their User Page, I think the comment you currently have on yours is almost certainly in contravention of the requirement not to encourage violence. I believe it goes beyond a "mere statement of support for [a] controversial regime". Can I ask that you consider whether it is appropriate to have such a comment on your user page. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've not responded to this. I remain of the view that your comment re. Hamas constitutes a "statement that seems to advocate, encourage, or condone acts of violence. ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence)", in contravention of Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit. If you're unwilling to engage, I'll flag the issue elsewhere. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its how I feel about Hamas since they murdered people and have had violent progests all over world encouraging hate towards Jewish people and Israel. I support Israel. Im protected by WP: Free Speech and Hamas are evil terrorists. If i cant support Israel like some do on here, then Palestine users would be allowed to support Hamas and Palestine. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the second paragraph of WP:Free Speech - “you have no ‘right’ to insist that Wikipedia carry what you write”. Your comment is a clear incitement to violence, and is inappropriate for Wikipedia, per the UserPage Guideline I have already quoted. I would ask that you remove it. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll agree to disagree but it's been changed. Now gone thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Belmont Rural, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belmont Abbey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Currently"

Please don't use "currently", as in statements like " is currently represented by Cllr Susan Boulter." in Whitecross, Hereford. We can't be sure that you or any other editor will check and/or update that name after the next local elections, so this is likely to become incorrect over time. See MOS:CURRENTLY and WP:RELTIME, and consider using {{As of}} or stating the date of their election ("X was elected as councillor in yyyy[ref]"), to make the encyclopedia future-proof. Thanks. PamD 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are continuing to do this, as in your creation of Boley Park. Please stop this disruptive editing against the MOS. Unless you are certain that you, or someone else, will update all these articles after the next local elections, you are setting Wikipedia up to become out of date. PamD 11:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should check half of Worcestershires articles which have one dated to 2007/09 and no new updates since. I think it was St Johns or Henwick. I only updated them since I was adding areas of Worcester. Additionally, its far from disruptive to say currently. If i said is represented by. That be just as disruptive. So really some editors need to fact check some articles and maybe update accordingly DragonofBatley (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are badly-written and out of date articles elsewhere is no excuse for adding to the future problem by making statements which will become incorrect after the next council election or even by-election. If you use the wording "As of September 2024 it was represented by ...", this will always be true. That's why "currently" should almost always be avoided, as per MOS:CURRENTLY and WP:RELTIME. Please stop adding statements which will become untrue over time: we're writing an encyclopedia for the future, not just for this year. Thanks. PamD 18:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial counties

When in the case of area of Lichfield the place is in the administrative county its not normally appropriate to use the word "ceremonial" as it suggests that place isn't in the administrative county such as like Stoke-on-Trent thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Larry Steinbachek for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Larry Steinbachek, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Steinbachek until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi DragonofBatley. Thank you for your work on Hartfordbeach. Another editor, I dream of horses, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

You made a mistake even experienced Wikipedians make. The hamlet article you meant to link is at Hamlet (place). Hamlet is the Shakespeare play.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|I dream of horses}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah i forgot about the play of the same name sorry. Thanks for correcting it. I will remember to link the Hamlet (place) link in future. Thanks again DragonofBatley (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making your articles findable

Please remember that if you create an article with a disambiguated title like Witton, Northwich you need to add it to the disambiguation page at Witton so that readers can find it. I've done this one, but I see you have created quite a few other articles for wards etc which still need dab page entries. Thanks. PamD 22:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Brownhills

added links pointing to Springhill and Sandhills

Walsall

added a link pointing to Al-Farouq

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PamD 07:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mosques of Leicestershire has been nominated for renaming

Category:Mosques of Leicestershire has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PamD 10:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mosques of Lincolnshire has been nominated for renaming

Category:Mosques of Lincolnshire has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PamD 11:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abbey, Lincoln, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lincoln Prison.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Areas of Peterborough

A tag has been placed on Category:Areas of Peterborough indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theddlethorpe All Saints

Could you explain why this is in Category:Areas of Mablethorpe and Sutton? It seems to be a separate parish, with no mention of Mablethorpe or Sutton in its article. Similary, why is Hogsthorpe in Category:Areas of Skegness, when the only mentions of Skegness is that Hogsthorpe is 7 miles north of it, the post town, and part of the constituency name? etc. PamD 16:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seathorne, on the other hand, really does appear to be in the civil parish of Skegness, so Category:Areas of Skegness would be reasonable if there was any mention of the parish in the article, but there isn't. [Mapit] or OS mapping confirms that it's in the parish, but it's in neither infobox nor text. The category should not be added unless supported in the text of the article.

When you create a category such as Category:Areas of Skegness it would be helpful to define "Skegness" in a note on the category page: is it the civil parish or what? Thanks. PamD 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Suburb"s

What justification is there for describing Station, Boston as a suburb? It appears not to exist in any role other than as a local government electoral ward. (And this is just one of many examples). PamD 10:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#What's_a_suburb?, for info. PamD 10:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay lets just put this in theory. If somewhere like Fenside or Staniland has existed for 50-100 years or even Lincoln's Moorland or Hartsholme. And surveys from 80-100 years referred to them as suburbs or areas. Then a defacto is suburb or district. So a district, area or suburb ususally mean the same thing. One could argue how Scotforth or Chorlton-cum-Medlock are suburbs when they were their own settlements. They just were and became wards or suburbs. Even Highbridge becoming one with Burham on Sea despite Highbridge never losing its town status. Or Sutton on Sea and Mablethorpe.

Point is wards and suburbs have zero difference other than being used for council elections and demographics. Some areas are even wards and suburbs. So i dont see an issue. If this is one, then maybe Wikipedia should have a topic wide debate on its defenition since towns or villages are now becoming suburbs of larger cities towns and conurbations as is the case with North Hykeham and Lincoln urban area. Dewsbury Kirklees Wakefield Bradford Leeds and Calderdale Huddersfield or Rotherham and Sheffield. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Station, Boston for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Station, Boston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Station, Boston until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

10mmsocket (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Areas of Boston, England has been nominated for renaming

Category:Areas of Boston, England has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PamD 15:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Austerby for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Austerby, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austerby until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Haven Village for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Haven Village is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haven Village until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PamD 12:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kirton railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spalding.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi DragonofBatley. Thank you for your work on Witham, Boston. Another editor, Sir MemeGod, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good job! I didn't know that the United Kingdom also had a "Boston", I was a bit confused at first. :D

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Sir MemeGod}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

MemeGod _chat 18:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hykeham Memorial for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hykeham Memorial is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hykeham Memorial until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Methodist Church, Bardney

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Methodist Church, Bardney, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi DragonofBatley. Thank you for your work on Wallington Heath. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

townandvillageguide.com

There was a discussion yesterday at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Unreliable source? "Town and Village Guide" and the conclusion was that townandvillageguide.com is not a reliable reference for articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating talk pages

Thanks for creating talk pages for some articles, but please note that {{WPBS}} shouldn't appear more than once in one talk page. See Talk:Pelsall Wood as an example (I've tidied it up). Thanks. PamD 09:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi DragonofBatley. Thank you for your work on All Saints' Church, Sedgley. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed and wonderful days ahead!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of All Saints' Church, Bloxwich

Hello, DragonofBatley

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username TheTechie, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, All Saints' Church, Bloxwich, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheTechie}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 21:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Churches

When you create a page for a church, using the placename as disambiguation, please remember to add the church to the appropriate disambiguation page - I've added some of your recent creations to Salem Church, St Andrew's Church, and St James' Church. It makes the reader more likely to find them, and helps prevent another editor from creating a duplicate with a different choice of title. I've added those three. (And please cast a quick eye over a page you've created or worked on to look for red links: "Methodism" shouldn't be red in the infoboxes for Salem Church, Cheslyn Hay, Upper Landywood Methodist Church and Great Wyrley Wesley Methodist Church, as it currently is). Thanks. PamD 15:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi DragonofBatley. Thank you for your work on Wygate. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

A ward/electoral district would not qualify it for a separate article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Producing a large amount of articles on electoral districts

During NPP review I noticed that it appears that you are mass producing articles on electoral districts. That doesn't qualify them for a separate article under the geographic special notability guideline and the articles don't have WP:GNG type sources to meet wp:notability requirement under that route. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: The SNG specifically excludes census tracts and other areas that are not commonly recognized as a place. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi DragonofBatley. Thank you for your work on Wallington Heath. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous categories

Hallo, per WP:CATMAIN, please remember that an article in its eponymous category needs a sort key of a space, so that it appears first. I've fixed Rodington. Thanks. PamD 18:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

District v parish categories

Thakyou for creating categories for parishes like Category:Chetwynd Aston and Woodcote but please note that if an article like Woodcote, Shropshire is in the parish category it shouldn't normally also be in the district category namely Category:Telford and Wrekin (see WP:SUBCAT) except perhaps if the place is also in another parish and we don't have a category for the other parish yet, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great Haywood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colwich.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Little Dawley

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Little Dawley, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi DragonofBatley. Thank you for your work on Doseley. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

An occupied place with a former parish church; sufficient references to support notability.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi DragonofBatley. Thank you for your work on Spring Village, Shropshire. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for developing articles on this set of hamlets. Similar status to the others in Category:Dawley Hamlets.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source/text integrity

I am becoming increasingly concerned at what appears to be a lack of source/text integrity in the stream of new articles you are creating on hamlets/wards. Setting aside the notability of these topics, it is essential that the sources you cite support the content that you write, to enable users to verify that the cited information is supported by reliable sources – improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. In the Spring Village, Shropshire article you recently created, I and another editor have added "Failed verification" tags to five sources, comprising over half of the total number you have used. You are aware I've flagged this concern previously, in relation to Central Park (Telford) and Wallington Heath, but you have chosen not to respond in either earlier case. Can I again ask that you clearly set out on the article Talkpages how you believe that the sources you have used support the content you have written. KJP1 (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the concern raised by KJP1 above. Rupples (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. I tagged Newland, Lincoln with factual accuracy issues – I'm not sure how this has happened, but it needs to stop. Cremastra (u — c) 16:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra This Newland is also one of several places described as an "inner-city suburb", which seems to be a contradiction in terms. PamD 16:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since other editors have raised this, I'll speak up too. Many of the sources which are used to supposedly source these articles don't seem to do so. When citing a printed book or hard-to-link source, please use "quote" in the reference to show the relevant text. Thanks. PamD 16:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redhill, Telford also has issues; I've removed text and tagged several sources with failed verification. I may add a factual accuracy tag too. Since this is a long-term behavioural problem, I think you should respond and offer some kind of explanation lest this end up at WP:AN/I to prevent further issues. Cremastra (u — c) 16:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Lower Bar, Shropshire and Doseley. Cremastra (u — c) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An example is described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haven Village, where one of the "sources", on examination, was the phrase "Skegness is a small haven, village, ...". PamD 16:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, one of the sources at Central Park (Telford) was about stone road building in Philadelphia, and discussed the merits of a "Telford road", which seems to be a construction style. [1]

Have you ever used AI, a chatbot, or an LLM in any way while writing articles? Cremastra (u — c) 16:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry been busy with moving today. I'll have a look tonight through each article tagged. So far I can see the following need attention (Feel free to reply any I've missed):

Was these all the ones? I can work through each one tonight but may take sometime

DragonofBatley (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Redhill, Telford DragonofBatley (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope your move goes well. Yes, that seems to be the list so far. Cremastra (u — c) 18:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have just completed a big rewrite of Central Park (Telford). See how it looks now. Will be working on the next batch now DragonofBatley (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra, I have done some work on Central Park, Newland and Doseley. Hopefully these are more sourced and written better. I am all okay with Wallington Heath I believe and its only Red Hill and I can see Lower Bar too. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? In the middle of a discussion in which multiple editors are questioning your sourcing for article creations, you decide the appropriate response is to create more. Including this one, Lawley Bank, where you are using a source published in 1860 to support text about developments in the village which occurred in 1963. This cannot continue. KJP1 (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder how these things happen in the first place. They seem beyond reasonable accidents.

Have you ever used AI, a chatbot, or an LLM in any way while writing articles? Cremastra (u — c) 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe these are accidents. Whether it's AI, or a wilful neglect of source integrity in pursuit of getting the articles published, I've no idea, but I am pretty confident we have an problem of a mass of inaccurate/incorrectly sourced articles. Which is getting worse, as Dragon continues to create them even as we try to raise our concerns. As an aside, the re-write of Central Park (Telford) is pretty awful. KJP1 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent the better part of half an hour to an hour. Rewriting Central Park, looking at many sources and articles. I then tried to bring it inline with other articles like I54 with some businesses and news articles. As well as any books that mention it. I addressed the concerns on Doseley, Newland, Lower Bar and checked the others. I created more because no one has placed me on a restriction to stop creating. I am actually writing the latter's carefully. So I think it is appropriate since I have checked and made as many edits as possible. If you want me to be banned from editing on this site. Raise your concerns but I have not left articles unreadable or unsourced. I am actually fixing issues mentioned. I am able to do so, I am not harming the encyclopaedia because I am writing the articles as I go. Sorry if I am offending you by going about contributing more articles for and civil parishes. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not use AI, i search for somewhere. Google may generate a description but I check the sources and maps as well as any other Wiki articles likely linked to the place. Like Trench Crossing railway station for Trench, Shropshire or Coalport China Museum for Coalport category etc... DragonofBatley (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also keen to hear an explanation of your use of sources at Lawley Bank. "The village later became part of the Dawley New Town in 1963, which later became Telford" being accompanied by a reference to a source published in 1860 is a red flag, but not the only one here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, that is on me. I am only reusing certain sources as most of these settlements grew up around each other and form the modern day Telford and Wrekin. If they did not exist before or after Telford was formed. I do not use the sources. I misplaced it apologies. I will fix that now DragonofBatley (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain the "haven, village" source I mentioned above? If you had looked at the source you would have noticed it was about Skegness and not about anywhere called "Haven Village". PamD 21:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon - what you have not done is give us any explanation as to how this is happening. How are you creating so many articles where the sources fail to support the content? We need to understand what you are doing. So, can you please set out the process you are following to create these articles. And can you please not create any more until this issue is resolved. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, ill break it down into three steps.

Step 1: If I identify a location on Google Maps, say like Leegomery and there was no article. I then checked Wikipedia and the article does not exist. It does now but I'm using it as an example. So i check sources like history and books. If theres mentions of it in journals, websites, local government etc. I begin planning the article.

Step 2: I use the regulalry used infobox template and layouts references history etc. I then begin with intro, then history, geography (if applicable), transport (if applicable) and landmarks. Basic headings. Then i edit infobox so photo, coordinates, grid ref, parish, county etc.

Step 3: I read and reread for grammatical errors or terms. I also make sure sources are used where needed or for clarity. I make sure to use websites, news, books, journals or other notable sources relevant to that article. Then i finish with relevant categories like villages and boroughs and civil parish.

Then if ive made any errors i go back like i did last night and address any edit concerns.

Thats how i do my editing and my set pattern. If theres no notable sources. I do not create the article but if the domesday book which is often trusted and cited mentions that settlement. It makes it notable. Or any place names which have historical ties to the county.

Hope I have explained enough to give idea to my editing process.DragonofBatley (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful. Thanks for outlining your process. Taking the article sourcing first, we can come to the article writing later:

Your starting point is Google Maps, where you identify places that don't have articles;
Then you find sources. How do you do that? I am assuming most of them are online sources, and that you don't have, say, a hard copy of Volume 14 of the Transactions of the Engineers Club of Philadelphia of 1897 at home. I guess that you put key word(s), say "Telford", or "Haven village" into an internet search engine and see what comes up. Is that right?
Then you "check" the sources you have found. Can you explain how? If we take three examples, and there are more: in Central Park (Telford) you used the Philadelphia Club report of 1897 to support content about the Telford area when the report was actually talking about road surfacing; in Haven Village (now deleted), you used a source that was actually talking about Skegness, on the other side of the country; and in Draft:Lawley Bank, you used a source dating from 1860 to support content about the village in 1963. I am struggling to understand how your checking led you to think the sources you had found supported the content that you wrote. Were they all just mistakes? KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1 @DragonofBatley: I wonder whether part of the problem is the starting point. Not every name on Google maps will be a well-defined place, or have any claim to Notability. It might be a more worthwhile project to have a look at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes and create some of those articles. There's quite a list for Lincolnshire, a county you seem interested in. (In the last few weeks I turned blue most of the red links in List of civil parishes in Shropshire, a satisfying little job.) A CP is a legally defined populated place with a real existence, so it's notable. There are official sources, maps, usually a parish council with a website with info about both council and parish, sometimes historical content about parish changes / splits/ mergers, usually a "see also" to a list of listed buildings, content for an infobox, all reliably sourced. There is a pattern of reliable sources to use, instead of casting the net of a Google search and finding random sources which need extremely careful checking to see if they are relevant and useful. PamD 19:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor just done that with Overdale, Telford. I have restored it since I am told to always discuss notability for articles. I feel this should be, the editor in question was @Cremastra DragonofBatley (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the problem here. The problem is that the history section appears to be made up, or at least has very little to do with the sources. I'm astonished that this keeps happening. Cremastra (u — c) 23:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, here's the History section which I've since removed. Red text is text that doesn't seem to be verified by the offered reference; green text is good text; orange is claims I'm unsure about.

Overdale was first built in 1948, after initially being delayed in 1938 due to the outbreak of World War II.^[1] The estate was finished by the end of the 1940s.^[a] The estate was allocated for post-war housing^[b] by the then-Wellington Urban District Council.^[c]^[2]

References

^ Council, Telford & Wrekin. "Overdale - Telford & Wrekin Council". www.telford.gov.uk. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
^ "Newdale and Overdale trail - Lawley and Overdale Parish Council". 2022-08-01. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

^ Is the Mannerley Lane Development the same as Overdale?
^ not mentioned at all
^ The wellington urban district council is, I will concede, mentioned in the source.

Cremastra (u — c) 23:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per my note below, I have moved the Overdale article into draftspace as it fails all basic requirements about sourcing. I think the next stop may be ANI to deal with the larger problem. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By far the best source to use for any of these topics would be the Victoria County History's volumes on Staffordshire; vol. 11, released in 1985, covers Telford and is freely available here. Strangely, it has not been used in any of the articles discussed here (as far as I can see). The many settlements that now form Telford (or occupied what is now Telford) have a complex history and topography, incorporating market towns, villages, 18th century townships, dispersed semi-rural housing, old mining settlements and modern housing developments, many with their own names. However, not all are automatically notable. For instance, the VCH volume I cited includes one very brief mention of Overdale within its discussion on Ketley. Whilst the parish council's website also has some additional information, combined this at best yields a paragraph of prose on Wikipedia: worth mentioning in a parent article (like Lawley and Overdale, the civil parish it belongs to), but not justifiable as an article on its own. Nor is it very helpful to have lots of small articles about these places without a good sense of how they are interrelated historically and geographically -- again, a parent article brings this information together in a way which helps the reader.

I would suggest utilising the VCH as an exceptionally good source to support facts about the history of these settlements, and also to support merging many of the articles on these small housing estates and townships into parent articles unless they have enough written about them to support their own articles. I've already given the example of Overdale. Dawley Bank might warrant its own article, but it may also be worth merging it into Dawley or Lawley and Overdale or both, where a summary of its history and topography could be added as a subsection in the "Geography" section. Lawley Bank probably needs merging into the Lawley and Overdale article too. Sources like the VCH should guide notability judgements -- not whether something is named on Google Maps, is a stop on a walking trail, or has a bus stop; sources should be cited inline to support facts so that readers can verify them. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Attempting a summary

Dragon - I hope that the interventions by multiple editors over the past few days have shown you that there is a problem with your editing. You say "I am not harming the encyclopaedia" but multiple editors are telling you that you are. The major issues are source integrity and notability. On the first, we have provided numerous examples where the sources you have used do not support the content you have written. This is very damaging to Wikipedia's credibility and there are far too many instances to write them off as occasional mistakes. And you have continued to create articles with the same problems while these discussions have been ongoing, despite being asked not to do so. On notability, you are creating numerous stubs which are poorly sourced, are often poorly written, and which fail to meet our notability guidelines.

I would like to make a suggestion. It seems clear that you are unable to create appropriate articles without support. Are you willing to voluntarily commit to putting any new articles you want to create through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process? If you are, that would be a means by which you could get the support you need. If you are not, I can see no alternative to taking the issue to ANI. Obviously, this is only my suggestion. Other editors may not support it, and may see an immediate referral to ANI as a better resolution. KJP1 (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I've learnt anything. It is that basically. Under cover, stop making articles 😒. Yet I've been here for 3 years and in all that time. None of my articles were even put through this much coverage until 2025. Maybe there's a stigma or agenda against me. Threatening ANI on me and telling me to basically without wording it P@@s Off? If I'm not wanted on here, just say so. I'll happily up and leave. It wouldn't be the first time I got banned on Wikipedia or quit it. I will not bother making more. You think your helping but no its basically a political page of critics and looking for a reason to boot me off here. Some editors are great but a majority on here would obviously like to see me limited to obselete by threatning to take me to the higher ups. Not worth the effort or pain. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to add, i understand notability but most old articles on here that need updating like Oakengates are so poorly outdated no one cares enough to update anything. Is it not worth it or maybe Brookside, Telford until i brought up merging or deleting it.? They had nothing but sat two decades undisturbed? DragonofBatley (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or even Broseley, Jackfield, Coalbrookdale, Dawley, Horsehay and Dawley railway station (mentioned as a Disused Station but has been active since Telford Steam Railway reopened it? And i updated it?) How about seeing my postives than negatives on here? Im sick to the back teeth of it. Do good nothing mentioned. Do bad or mistake and make a song and dance about it? DragonofBatley (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call me unprofessional call me an Ahole or a bad editor. I really don't want to be bothered anymore. Always negative on this site. I am apparently as dangerous as an anonymous ip that likely vandalises articles cause they dont need an account? DragonofBatley (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPs undertaking vandalism are easily spotted and reverted, normally by a bot. Someone who posts articles with falsified citations is a much bigger threat because it takes more time and effort to sort out than basic vandalism. KJP has offered you a way in which you can work constructively, but you've rejected that and every previous attempt to get you to work within the established guidelines and you are still posting problematic content. Don't play the victim card: other people manage it and there is no reason why you cannot too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've played no victim card. I'm a human like everyone else. I've spent time addressing earlier concerns but now more and more build up. I can't keep up DragonofBatley (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm right about Oakengates and Brookside DragonofBatley (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

It seems to me that KJP1 is actually going to considerable lengths to avoid taking this to ANI. Agreeing to use AfC to review drafts is no bad thing. Work is always better when there is peer review, in every realm. I think we all appreciate your enthusiasm and commitment to this area of the site, and I expect we would all be happy with an outcome that kept you doing what you enjoy, whilst allowing others to review and assist you in improving that work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Im just tired of being threatened with possible topic bans or making it harder for me to work on here to concentrate on articles that need addressing or have enough possible grounds for a standalone article DragonofBatley (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to voluntarily take up KJP1's suggestion of submitting drafts to Articles for Creation. It's a very fair and generous 'offer' in the circumstances, even though it might not look that way to you. Appreciate how you must be feeling. Yes, you make some really good contributions, so it's disappointing to have to raise the issue of source integrity. Your responses suggest you haven't fully grasped the seriousness of the problem. It probably needs editors to go back and take a look at your earlier articles to determine whether the issue is recent or goes back months and years. Rupples (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

”It wouldn't be the first time I got banned on Wikipedia”. Can you please provide details of this ban, such as the name of the account you were using at the time and whether that ban was ever lifted. - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking 😆 DragonofBatley (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given this, I'm not sure I believe you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's called sarcasm, and role playing. Try it sometime, its can be fun. Anyway off topic. Not gonna make more articles for now. Just gonna stick to categories. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identical articles

Hi DragonofBatley - you have recently published two articles which have almost identical word-for-word content, namely Redhill, Telford and St George's West. Would you please look into this? Thanks. Rupples (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupples will look into today sorry I think ive seen this glitch. Not sure how to go about deleting it DragonofBatley (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Crouch Swale has added a category, I think you could ask for it to be speedy deleted as "author requests deletion", as no-one else has contributed to it.. PamD 15:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or CSD G6 "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error".Pam D 15:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ill do that tonight thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think St George's West could be deleted as it doesn't really appear to exist. I can't find it on maps. I think when all I did was add a category G7 can still be applied. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

I noticed that you tagged St George's West for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag from the page because it does not meet the criterion or criteria specified. Please fully read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion before tagging pages for speedy deletion. Thank you. There is sufficient information to identify the subject of the article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe: See the discussion above, DragonofBatley is the author and while I agree it doesn't meet A1 it does meet G7 and possibly G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, @DragonofBatley, could you tag it G7 to document that you want it deleted? Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it CSD G6, and made a link from the talk page to the above section. The sooner we remove this accident from the encyclopedia the better. PamD 23:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up to you @PamD, I have created an article for your redirect on Newdale, Shropshire. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: Spotted it, have cleaned it up somewhat, it needs better sources, and I'm not convinced it's actually notable. PamD 23:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good timing. I just came back from a walk. It is gone, gone, gone. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe I'm not sure that an article which is entirely about a different place really "identifies the subject of the article"! PamD 23:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It identified something. The title may be wrong, but the article has identifiable information. This could be arguable, but I view A1 as being very restrictive. As it says in the policy for A1, If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're probably right. It's gone now. There may be a WP:CIR element to it having been proposed under the wrong CSD despite advice given on which to use! PamD 23:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: To expand on all that a little, A1 is only ever going to apply to very short articles. Additionally, subject to some exceptions, speedy deletion is not going to automatically apply to pages created at the wrong title, though redirects created from moving pages to the correct title afterwards may be suppressible under WP:PMRC#3. For duplicates WP:A10 may apply unless a redirect would be plausible, though as you saw, {{db-error}} or {{db-self}} can also be tagged for if applicable. Sometimes the patrolling sysops can see what you intended to tag for and delete under that criterion instead, but it's best to try to keep things straightforward and clear for them. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also need to be able to retrospectively justify any and all of my actions, so I need some definitive documentation that can be found by looking at the contents, log or edits of the deleted page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe Fair enough. I think I was just fed up at it having been nominated for the wrong version of CSD! Thanks for your work as an admin, a task I've refused to volunteer for. PamD 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That refusal shows that you're smarter than me! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawley Bank moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Lawley Bank. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because of concerns expressed at User talk:DragonofBatley#Source/text integrity. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Lawley Bank has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lawley Bank. Thanks! Jõsé^hola 09:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overdale, Telford moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Overdale, Telford. This is not ready for publication as you have misrepresented what the sources say. None of the sources used support anything in the article and two of the sources are of dubious reliability. I have moved the article to draftspace where it can be improved. Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page.

Please do not ever falsify claims as to what sources say. This seems to be a pattern with a few articles, as evidenced by other posts on this page, and if I see it repeated, I will file a report an ANI to bring this disruption to an end. - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi DragonofBatley. Thank you for your work on Dawley Bank. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! May you and your family have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lawley Bank (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

When you cite sources especially offline; books, archived need sources, etc., please include page numbers and the complete bibliographical informations.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lawley Bank and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DragonofBatley! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eston

I notice that you reverted my efit of seversl years on "Eston". You removed the word 'former'. Eston was indeed an industrial town, while mining was prevelent, but since 1950 there has been no industry of not. What Wikipedia describes is what things are now, not nostalgia about how they were in the Golden Age. There is room in the History section to describe its former state. Francis Hannaway (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Council, Telford & Wrekin. "Overdale - Telford & Wrekin Council". www.telford.gov.uk. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

[5] "Newdale and Overdale trail - Lawley and Overdale Parish Council". 2022-08-01. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

[2] Is the Mannerley Lane Development the same as Overdale?

[3] t mentioned at all

[4] The wellington urban district council is, I will concede, mentioned in the source.

[1]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[2]