User talk:Crouch, Swale

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kudpung (talk | contribs) at 11:51, 28 December 2010 (→‎Over 500 articles: six months). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Crouch, Swale, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. ϢereSpielChequers 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbrian villages

Hi, thanks for all the effort you're putting into creating articles on Cumbrian villages. You may not know but there is a WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria dedicated to improving the coverage of the two counties on Wikipedia. We would love you to join so that we can co-operate on development of articles. All the best. NtheP (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all your articles are uncategorized. If nothing else, could you please add the stub, {{england-stub}} to the bottom of these new pages? Thanks. — Timneu22 · talk 13:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stainton, Cumbria

Hello Homan's Copse. Are there any images of your village? If so, you can add them to the article. Cheers. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography articles

Hi, thanks for creating some fantastic articles on UK places. Please take time to learn Wikipedia's manual of style for UK places, as this would make your articles even better. I have tidied some of the most recent articles for you. -- roleplayer 12:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also find the county geography stub templates handy, e.g. Category:Suffolk geography stubs. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Suffolk stubs, rather than add the category directly, just add {{suffolk-geo-stub}} rather than {{england-stub}}. You can also usefully add the category Category:Villages in Suffolk, for when the article has grown beyond a stub. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference sections

Hello there! I keep running into your new stub articles on English counties, hundreds, etc. I'd just like to point out that it would be helpful to read over WP:REF to get a better sense on how to format references. Thanks for all of your additions! GorillaWarfare talk 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion

I have created the following articles and I would like them to be put through the speedy deletion process.

Walton Summit, Cathkin, Lanarkshire‎.

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2010

Delivered August 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 10:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2010

Delivered September 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 06:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadleigh

Hi, now that you've converted Hadleigh into a disambiguation page, could you help fix the links that need to be re-pointed to an article per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Navigation popups, with the popupFixDabs flag set to true, is very helpful. Cheers! --JaGatalk 11:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation pages

Hi, you recently edited White House (disambiguation). Not sure if you noticed, but when you edit a disambiguation page, it reads at the top, "Generally only one navigable link (blue link) belongs in each bulleted entry." I've fixed the entry you added, but just FYI, for future edits. 018 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles

I see that you have moved a number of articles and created disambiguation pages in cases where there are two places with the same name. You may like to consider whether one of the two places should be the primary topic, in which case a dab page is not needed (see WP:TWODABS). If you do go ahead and convert the original page to a dab page, please remember to fix the links to that page, per WP:FIXDABLINKS. I have dealt with this at Upton, Oxfordshire, but there seem to be several others. Thanks. --Mhockey (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on hamlets

Hi, please stop now creating one line stubs about English hamlets without including at least the minimum information required for Wikipedia articles on settlements; Mass creation of stubs is considered WP:disruptive editing, and can lead to the author being blocked. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with what Kudpung said. At the very least, I'd like to see some indication in the article as to why these hamlets are significant, and - ideally - I'd like to see {{coord}} being used so that other editors are spared the hassle of having to tag them for missing the "coord", then yet more editors have to determine where the hamlets are, and add in the coord. TFOWR 09:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the comments above. Long-standing consensus is that articles on human settlements of any size are acceptable in Wikipedia. Building the encyclopedia by creating stubs that others can improve complies with our editing policy and is something to be encouraged. The only disruption that I see here is that two editors, including an administrator who should know much better, are discouraging you from helping to build this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this rule include "settlements" that are just a house or two? Dbfirs 15:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been using A–Z street atlases as a source, which clearly shows the difference between a hamlet and a house Homan's Copse (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine if you check that the locations really are settlements, but some of your source maps tend to name just random houses in rural areas, and you are mis-interpreting this as meaning that there is a significant settlement there. Dbfirs 11:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this editor is describing every place mentioned on a map as a hamlet, see Jaw Hill. With respect the A-Z doesn't differentiate between houses and hamlets or neighbourhoods, and doesn't claim to. Most of these places are not notable and should be merged into appropriate articles or deleted.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think some research should be done before creating stub articles for random mentions on a map. Dbfirs 16:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jaw hill is clearly a settlement, see http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm Homan's Copse (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2010

Delivered October 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 00:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thorncliffe/Thorncliff

Could you have a look at the recent copy/move & redirect that you did for Thorncliffe & Thorncliff as they all seem to redirect to a new article called Thorncliffe, Thorncliffe, Kirkburton, which doesn't seem right? Thozza (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acton

Hello, I noticed that you moved Acton, London to Acton, Greater London, this seems wrong, the guideline you quoted says "For the City of London and Greater London combined [[placename, London]] is used.". Thanks Grim23★ 13:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eccleshill

Hi, now that Eccleshill is a disambig, please remember to WP:FIXDABLINKS. Thanks! --JaGatalk 20:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlets

I will continue to tag non notable articles in the area in which I live. You should be aware that List of United Kingdom locations is a wikipedia page and not an independent source of notable places. You really shouldn't believe everything you read here. A mention in an A-Z is hardly a decent reference. I see from your user page you appear to be on a crusade to create these articles with an average of 2 edits per page, it would be far more impressive to see them developed. I live in W Yorks and can assure you of their non notability.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read How to write about settlements before you add irrelevant headings to articles. Please do not them to articles I have taken the trouble to expand or I will most definately remove them. Thank you--J3Mrs (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

I have granted your account the autopatrolled flag. WilliamH (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to A-Z

Will you please stop referencing innaccuracies to the A-Z. It is not helpful.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and Paste

If you copy and paste text from listed Buildings Online as you did at Round Maple, you will get a copyvio notice. You are supposed to write it in your own words as I have now done. You over link the articles, naming every road and placename within a five mile radius does not make them any more notable. Constant references to A-Z maps are not needed when coordinates are used. Please read the guidelines.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't reference to A-Z because you find it a convenient way of avoiding unreferenced tags! References show notability, coordinates show location. As far as anchors go stop creating pages to places that aren';t notable and there won't be a problem. Short articles, according to the Manual of Style should have fewer headers. You really should check whether a place is REALLY notable rather than a word on a map BEFORE you create a page.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penrith

Looking at whatlinkshere suggests that there are a significant number of links intended for the Australian town. It would perhaps have been more helpful to at least fix the dablinks first, and even better to have discussed before moving. We now have a situation in which it is much harder to fix the links than it was before your move. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple

Can I please have help expanding Round Maple, especially the Quicks Farm section and the Seasons section from http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-490837-quicks-farmhouse-edwardstone and http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-276464-seasons-edwardstone, thankyou Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 11:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit mode

HI. You'll see that the stuff you had put in the edit notice of this page has gone. I took it out because the code had made it impossible for anyone to leave a message here. This is the stuff I removed (it's everything that's between the <nowiki></nowiki> tags when you view this page or this section in edit mode.--Kudpung (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed code

I only creates articles about [[villages]] and [[Hamlet (place)|hamlets]] in [[England]] for example [[Round Maple]] or [[Long Marton]]. If I have created a page that you have any Concerns about or isn't about a place in [[England]], please leave me a notice on [[User talk:Crouch, Swale|my talk page]], but please check at http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm that it isn't a placename first. * {{WPE-Member}} most of the articles that I create are stubs. * {{User WikiProject Yorkshire}} * {{User WikiProject Suffolk and Essex}} * {{User WP Lancashire Cumbria}} * {{User WikiProject English Hamlets}}

Welcome messages

The next problem is the welcome message template you are trying to use, such as the one you placed on User talk:Impossiblekgirl. It's great to see you wanting to welcome people, but there's something seriously wrong there too if you look at the page in edit@ mode and see all the code it's generated. If you're not sure how templates work and are programmed, it's best to stick with the standard oes we use - for one thing, although I know you are trying to be helpful, but there's just too much information in that one for a young kid who's taking their first wobbly steps at Wikipedia. Take care, and happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hamlets in England

Template:Hamlets in England has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject English Hamlets

I believe this project may have been created out of process and without the necessary support. However as I don't deal with wikiprojects I don't really know how to deal with it so I've posted a question here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Round Maple

Category:Round Maple, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Green

I noticed that you started a new article. I made a couple of changes to the formatting of the references. Firstly, I put the references after the full-stops instead of before. That just makes them look a bit nicer. Secondly, I noticed that you used the same reference four times. Each time it was being listed as a new reference; giving four identicle entries in the reference list. You can name references. You used <ref>A-Z Essex, 2010 edition. p. 170</ref> every time you wanted to use that reference. That gave four duplicate copies, with four different in-line numbers: see here. What I did was name the reference. The first time it was used I wrote <ref name="A-Z">A-Z Essex, 2010 edition. p. 170</ref>. That named the reference as A-Z. Then, for each following use of that reference I put <ref name="A-Z"/>. That gave a single in-line number, and a single reference list entry (indexed by letter): see here. I hope you like the way it looks now. If you use it in the future, then just remember to give different references different names and you'll save a lot of typing, a lot of space, and your article will be neater and easier to understand. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can archive or delete anything on your user talk page at any time. Deleting it is an acknowledgement that you've read it. If you didn't want all of those speedy deletion notices clogging everything up, or if you didn't want my two posts clogging things up, then there's nothing stopping you doing some house keeping. All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ON the other hand, all those notices are a sign that you might be needing some help with understanding some of the policies and process of building this encylopedia. It's an opportunity for people like me to jump in and lend a friendly hand :) --Kudpung (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your advice, I have now fixed Heckfordbridge. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 11:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

So others use A-Zs as well. See Chapeltown, West Yorkshire, there is also a reference to an A-Z. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 13:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above is a message you left in the middle of my talkpage.

  • If you wish to contact me and start a new conversation you ought to use the New section tab at the top of the page so I can see it.
  • My reply is, because someone else did it does not make it right.
  • I live near Whitley, that's what we call it!
  • Round Maple gets a lot of hits because you edit it so often!!!! It is in my opinion, like Jagger Green, not notable.
  • If a whole sentence is referenced to the same reference, it only needs one mention.

And finally you followed me round yesterday as I found some references for Simister. I hoped you'd learn something, like what makes a good reference, how to cite. It would be useful to Wikipedia if you checked that your "hamlets" were notable not just addresses before creating them. Reliable references are not about A-Z or the pub, they refer to something that makes a place notable.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2010

Delivered December 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 00:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2010

Delivered December 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 00:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

Can I suggest you do a bit more research before making a requested move for a place as many of you move requests are being strongly opposed. I'd also suggest you give a longer and better reason. "Clearly primary" offers no one else any information while you think this is the case and it's becoming clear that to many people the reason is far from clear. Dpmuk (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I must second that request. We assume good faith on your part but these half-baked requests are wasting a lot of time, and our patience will not last forever. If you want to be active on WP:RM, you need to read and understand WP:NC and make it a practice to base your arguments on it. Andrewa (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Little Thatch, Suffolk for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Little Thatch, Suffolk, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Thatch, Suffolk until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hamlets in Suffolk

Template:Hamlets in Suffolk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Quicks Farm for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Quicks Farm, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quicks Farm until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Flushing Farm for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Flushing Farm, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flushing Farm until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Seasons, Suffolk for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Seasons, Suffolk, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seasons, Suffolk until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

Hi Crouch. Please do not manually put Tables of Contents (TOC) in articles you create. Short articles do not need them and this is taken care of automatically by the site software when the article reaches certain size. By the way, have you read back over your talk page recently? I know that you really want to help build this encyclopedia, but It does seem that there are a lot of things that you are not getting quite right yet. These things are creating a lot of extra work for regular editors. Please do not hesitate to ask for advice before you do anything that ou have not looked up the instructions for first and fully understood. and if you are still not sure, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Bear in mind that there are also Wikipedia projects for Geography, Cities and places, England, and most English counties, regions, metropolitan authorities, and districts, that also provide further guidelines for editors.--Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crouch, along the same lines I suggest you refrain from making any more move proposals (or moving any articles) until you get a better grasp of how articles are named in general, and what are good reasons for moving them. I say this because you have made a series of move proposals that are contrary to our naming policy and guidelines, and have been universally opposed because of that. The best way to develop a better understanding of how articles are titled is probably to peruse the logs at WP:RM and participate in the various discussions, especially paying attention to the arguments made by others, and how the decisions are made. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation

Hi. Just wondering why you created these articles that all redirects to Round Maple:

I just can't imagine that these are search terms that users would require and are just taking up space. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crouch, Swale. You have new messages at Ilikeeatingwaffles's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hatherway Cottage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hatherway Cottage. Since you had some involvement with the Hatherway Cottage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple Cottages listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple Cottages. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple Cottages redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Langley View listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Langley View. Since you had some involvement with the Langley View redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well House listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Well House. Since you had some involvement with the Well House redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple Cottage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple Cottage. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple Cottage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulls Cross Wood listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bulls Cross Wood. Since you had some involvement with the Bulls Cross Wood redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bull's Cross Wood listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bull's Cross Wood. Since you had some involvement with the Bull's Cross Wood redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More redirects!

Seriously what is the point of:

when you have the article at Flushing Farm? It's creating clutter, and this article is highly likely to be deleted.

You missed out Flushing Farm, Great Britain, Flushing Farm, United Kingdom, etc. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, compare redirects to London (51) to redirects to Round Maple (47). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Round Maple listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Transport in Round Maple. Since you had some involvement with the Transport in Round Maple redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable structures in Round Maple listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Notable structures in Round Maple. Since you had some involvement with the Notable structures in Round Maple redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Quantpole (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Round Maple

Template:Round Maple has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Quantpole (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View from outside

Hi there Crouch. I have been reviewing your recent contributions and wondered if you would allow me to offer some pieces of advice.

  • References to A-Z atlases and photographs. You are fond of using A-Z and photographs as a references, I know that others have already spoken to you about this and explained the inherent problems but I thought I should raise it again. The easiest way to explain it is that when you are citing information, the reference you link to needs to contain actual text (i.e. sentences) which support the statements in the article. Linking to a photograph or a map requires both you and the reader to make an interpretation and this all falls into the murky world of original research. An example would be where you used a photograph of a woodland path to reference the statement "....has several footpaths" whereas what is required is a reference to a reliable source where someone has written (for example) "there are a number of footpaths in Edwardstone Woods"
  • Far more useful than a page number in an atlas is to actually give the geographical co-ordinates of the settlements. This will provide a link for people to click on which will allow them to select from a variety of map providers and different views. How to do this is explained in details at WP:COORD.
  • Redirects, templates and categories. You have recently created a lot of redirects, templates and categories many of which are now being discussed for deletion. This is obviously using up an awful lot of the community's time which I am sure you will agree could more usefully be spent improving articles. I appreciate that all your edits are being made in absolute good faith and that you are genuinely here for the good of the project but I was hoping that you could try to be more discerning with your creations. I would imagine that you have a feel by now for what is likely to be nominated for deletion so perhaps you could apply your own sanity test before you hit that "create" button. Whilst you obviously disagree with the arguments presented by the "deleters" I would highly recommend that you read them carefully and try to take on board the comments as they do appear to be representing community consensus.

You have caught the attention of a number of topographical editors now and I am worried that if you carry on as you have been and ignore the advice that you have been given both on this page and at various other talk venues the outcome will be accusations of disruptive editing. I would hate to see that happen.I might be wrong (and if I am then please accept my apologies in advance) but I get the impression that you are quite young and perhaps you have not yet had life experience of working collaboratively which is a skill in itself and is even more difficult in an environment like Wikipedia when your fellow contributors are remote and effectively anonymous.

I am more than happy to answer any questions or queries you might have so please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you need any help. Kind regards, Nancy talk 18:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One final thing. the UK Georgaphy Wikiproject has a really good page on how to write about settlements. It can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and I think could be very useful to you. Best, Nancy talk 18:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crouch, Swale. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
Message added 10:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Notability

Please do not remove notability tags unless you can provide reliable references that are not maps. I refer to Nancy's edit above. What you are doing now is quite disruptive. Nettleton Hill is a lane, an address, not a notable place. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Babergh West SNT listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Babergh West SNT. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Babergh West SNT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Calais Street for deletion

The article Calais Street is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calais Street until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sherbourne Street for deletion

The article Sherbourne Street is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherbourne Street until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Washmere Green for deletion

The article Washmere Green is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washmere Green until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Quantpole (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly now

Seriously. Stop doing things like this [1]. The previous move request was met with unanimous opposition and yet you start another after barely 6 weeks. With all of your creations of non-notable or barely notable farms/hamlets/buildings, and the move requests you are wasting people's time. Lots of people have told you this now. It may be worth actually stopping for a sec and paying attention.
If you want to talk to someone else about this rather than engage with those of us who have come to your talk page then feel free. They should be able to give you some advice as to why you are attracting so much attention (not in a good way) from people at the moment. However, at the moment you do not seem to be engaging with those who have concerns, and are well on the way to people taking further action to try and stop the disruption you are causing.
You clearly have a passion for what you are doing and want to contribute. It would be really good if you could do so in a way that doesn't piss everyone else off. Quantpole (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of South Heath, Essex for deletion

The article South Heath, Essex is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Heath, Essex until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Quantpole (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transport for Round Maple listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Transport for Round Maple. Since you had some involvement with the Transport for Round Maple redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Nancy talk 06:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Babergh) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple (Babergh). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple (Babergh) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Edwardstone) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple (Edwardstone). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple (Edwardstone) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (England) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple (England). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple (England) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Hamlet) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple (Hamlet). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple (Hamlet) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Sudbury) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple (Sudbury). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple (Sudbury) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Suffolk) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple (Suffolk). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple (Suffolk) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (Village) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple (Village). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple (Village) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (hamlet), Babergh listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple (hamlet), Babergh. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple (hamlet), Babergh redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (near Edwardstone) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple (near Edwardstone). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple (near Edwardstone) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple (suffolk) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple (suffolk). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple (suffolk) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple Suffolk listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple Suffolk. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple Suffolk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple in Suffolk listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple in Suffolk. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple in Suffolk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Boxford listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Boxford. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Boxford redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, East Anglia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, East Anglia. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, East Anglia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Edwardstone listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Edwardstone. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Edwardstone redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, England listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, England. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, England redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Mill Green listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Mill Green. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Mill Green redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Round Maple listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Round Maple. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Round Maple redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Round Maple, Edwardstone listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Round Maple, Edwardstone. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Round Maple, Edwardstone redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Sudbury listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Sudbury. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Sudbury redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Suffolk listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Suffolk. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Suffolk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Suffolk (near Edwardstone) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Suffolk (near Edwardstone). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Suffolk (near Edwardstone) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Suffolk (near Sudbury) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Suffolk (near Sudbury). Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Suffolk (near Sudbury) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, Suffolk, England listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, Suffolk, England. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, Suffolk, England redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple, suffolk listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round Maple, suffolk. Since you had some involvement with the Round Maple, suffolk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round maple (England) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round maple (England). Since you had some involvement with the Round maple (England) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round maple (near Edwardstone) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round maple (near Edwardstone). Since you had some involvement with the Round maple (near Edwardstone) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round maple, Babergh listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Round maple, Babergh. Since you had some involvement with the Round maple, Babergh redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roundmaple, Babergh listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Roundmaple, Babergh. Since you had some involvement with the Roundmaple, Babergh redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roundmaple, Suffolk listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Roundmaple, Suffolk. Since you had some involvement with the Roundmaple, Suffolk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Village of Round Maple listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Village of Round Maple. Since you had some involvement with the Village of Round Maple redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Maple

Please, no more redirects to Round Maple! When I saw Round Maple, Round Maple, Edwardstone, I knew that you simply having a joke. But jokes of this sort do not go down well. You have been warned about this twice but today you created a clutch of new ones so I am blocking you briefly. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 11:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you do create any valid redirects, please note that they do not have talk pages. Was it not utterly pointless to put Round Maple, Edwardstone into any WIkiproject? — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 12:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Just out of interest, I created Editing a page on Wikipedia, then tagged it for speedy deletion with {{db-author}} and {{db-r2}}, just out of interest what would have happened if I didn't want it deleted (I did want it deleted), as the R2 tag must not be removed by the creater, but I had added the tag myself, to summ-up if I had have reverted my own edit I would have been violating removal of a speedy deletion tag on an article that I created. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 17:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this

Up until now I have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but I am rapidly revising that opinion. You are moments out of a lock for disruption and you go and replace content which has previously been removed with clearly stated policy based reason by other editors.[2][3][4]. This is what we call edit warring. Are you trying to get blocked again? because if so you are going the right way about it & next time it will be for a lot longer than 31 hours.Nancy talk 20:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I left the message above you have proceeded to create upwards of 50 redirects from your userspace to Round Maple. Enough is enough, you are blocked from editing for one week. Please use this time to think carefully about how you can contribute constructively in the future paying heed to the advice that you have been given on this page.Nancy talk 11:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Crouch, Swale (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can't see anything disruptive about creating user subpages which redirect to an article. Also I have been accused of edit warring (as above) for making one or two reverts over a few weeks. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 13:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As long as you can't see the disruptive nature of your edits, its best to keep you blocked. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am concerned that you don't think that there is anything wrong with creating 50+ utterly pointless userspace redirects to Round Maple. You have already had large numbers of your mainspace redirects deleted at WP:RFD so you know perfectly well where the consensus lies and recreating them in userspace can only been seen as disruptive as it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Nancy talk 15:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hundreds of pages you put in the article space have been deleted and you can't set up your userspace as a topical sub-encyclopedia. Until you acknowledge that both policy and editor consensus don't support what you've been trying to do, it's highly unlikely you'll be unblocked and moreover, if you carry on with this behaviour when the block is up, you'll only be blocked again but for a much longer time. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does it say you can't create lots of redirects to an article either from article or user namespace. It's not spamming or anything like that, Round Maple doesn't have anything to advertise, it's a hamlet. Maby if it was lots of redirects to a business it would be totally different. There is no reason to delete thiese pages, there not doing any harm. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 22:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The consensus about this issue clearly says you should not make such redirects. I find it extremely difficult to believe that you still feel there is no reason to delete these pages when the reason is, the Wikipedia community feels they should be deleted. That's called consensus. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over 500 articles

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Crouch, Swale (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've created over 500 articles (look at Cliburn for example), created talk pages, welcomed new users. Should I really be blocked for doing something harmless. Unblocking me is not going to do any further damage to Wikipedia-therefore there is no reason to keep me blocked. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 10:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You still have not demonstrated that you understand why you were blocked. Nancy talk 11:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes, it's almost as bad as this. Have you any idea how many man hours of competent editors it's going to take to sift through it all and see what is worth keeping? You're very lucky, the last time anything like this happened, the user was blocked for six months. --Kudpung (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crouch,_Swale&oldid=404622400"