Talk:Marton, Harrogate

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Marton, Harrogate is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pub

What is going on with this article? To me it seems to be more about the pub than the village. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Let me tell you whats going on: in order to avoid the 3 edit rule leading to censure some people are taking it in turns to revert any work I o on an article despite the fact i am trying to follow the rules: I agree with you: I only wanted to offer a comment from the RESIDENTS of the village regarding their pub: the other editors (check out the history, then check the edits that these 2 have done between them!) they are obviously tagging, now YOU are involved!

How can I complain about their actions? Amhunt84 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well...it's not really worth complaining about..I still don't get it....? Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that there is absolutely no tagging, as you call it, the article just keeps popping up as changed and when I get to it in my watchlist then I look at the state of the article and do that which I think is appropriate. I have had no interaction whatsoever over this article with the other editor involved in the changes. Keith D (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it around a bit, is it better? Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm what KeithD writes: I happened to see that he was taking some heat on his talk page for implementing the strict rules on biographies of living people (see WP:BLP) and noticed that his utterly correct edit had been undone. Amhunt84, you ask me on my talk page to point you to the rules. I see on your talk page that Harkey has provided a series of helpful links welcoming you to Wikipedia. I suggest you read them and learn how things work before you leave any more intemperate comments on people's talk pages. One thing is for sure: Wikipedia is not a forum for people to bring up grudges against other people almost-instinct 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear keithd & always-instinct Its ok, another editor, Off2riorob, has offered some constructive help, thanks I am fully aware of WP is, as I am also aware of what you are.... but I have resolved to leave you and your patronising attitude alone: all I will say is that if you feel grudges are being bought up then you have to ask yourself whether you could have done anything different to resolve the situation amicably????? Hmmmm... thought so! Still, as long as you continue to feel superior & I feel I am learning then we are all achieving what we set out to achieve eh? Amhunt84 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: "grudges against other people" was a reference to the BLP content added to and removed from the page. Apologies for the ambiguity almost-instinct 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, advice to more experienced users when comong up against newbies. Perhaps you should read it? regards Amhunt84 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers[reply]

As you were requested several times to read the WP:Introduction page, and someone helpfully provided you with a Welcome template and links on your talk page and offered help, then this advice is a bit like "the pot calling the kettle grimy". --88.109.223.75 (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I left my first message to you, here on this page at 15:03 on 9/11/09, you had already written the following things on user talk pages:

"fail to understand what gives you the right" [1]
"you are welcome to it. Good job mate!" [2]
"i have amended the post about MY village, where I live again: please do not amend without a good reason & without discussing it with me 1st" [3]
"Fair enough, thanks for clearing that up: just as long as you are willing to accept that as you change it I will use the same terms of reference to change it back" [4]
"I did not change facts etc on the Marton article YOU did: please leave it alone" [5]
"the other editors (check out the history, then check the edits that these 2 have done between them!) they are obviously tagging" [6]
"Pathetic mate: small minded and pathetic" [7]
"Pathetic mate: small minded and pathetic" (again) [8]

IMO my suggestion that you find out how things work before leaving "intemperate comments on people's talk pages" scarcely constituted biting a newbie. Biting the newbie would have included talking about your spelling, punctuation and grammar almost-instinct 10:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Chap, best we leave this now as you just getting yourself upset: you really cant go quoting my comments when they are all responses to your inhospitable attitude: disputes over comments should really be "Discussed until an agreement is reached", not arrogantly overwritten. You only have to read the comments I made which you have kindly quoted above to see what I mean.

If my gramerr, spilling and p'unctuation's': offend you then perhaps you should restrict yourself to correcting those?

Come on guys, is the pub open yet? Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL (abbr: Laugh Out Loud) no, it reopens tomorrow: I put it on the WP page but that was removed too as it had no citation (sigh) - if any of you decide to try it I will buy you a drink - after all, you have to laugh really! The villagers are going down to support the new landlord/lady tomorrow from 6pm - do feel free! Save the country pub! Amhunt84 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do yourselves a favour, if you want to add it to this article, call the local paper that ran the previous story and get them to cover the reopening, cheers. Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "inhospitable attitude" was merely undoing edits which broke the rule on Biographies of Living People. That page says, in its opening section, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" [their bold] almost-instinct 08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]