User talk:Stansfieldman

Welcome!

Hello, Stansfieldman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todmorden

Hello Stansfieldman, thank you for the contact regarding Todmorden.

I don't doubt your contributions, but I'm afraid you misinterpret my intentions and motivations here - indeed the links I've provided above in the welcome message outline several fundamental policies of Wikipedia's (I must stress, they are Wikipedia's, not mine). In short, all material must be accopanied by a reliable source for verification; we do not allow individual editors to assert scholarly authority on any topic. Also, the tone and use of language in your contribution to Todmorden was a little flowery. I feel that I should give a more detailed counter-response for your points:

"After the breakdown of centralised Roman rule in Britain," - in what way was Britain centrally ruled by Romans? Where and when from? How does this pertain specifically to Todmorden? What source are you referencing?
"The country changed its character markedly due to a combination of the influx of some Angle, Saxon and Jute settlers and a cultural realignment precipatated by the need to form trading and diplomatic relationships with northern rather than southern Europe." - this is very flowery text. What source are you using? How does this pertain to Todmorden specifically?
"That history is reflected in the name of a village, Walsden, just inside the old border of Todmorden, which is derived from Wales Dene, or "Valley of the Welsh" in Anglo-Saxon." - do you have a source for this?
"At the very least you should ask for verification BEFORE undoing an edit" - rightfully or wrongfully, I'm afraid this isn't so on Wikipedia; Editors should provide a reliable source for material or it may be removed.
"An intimate acquaintance with the history (and derivation of place names) of Todmorden having spent the first 28 years of my life there." - this does not make you own the article, nor does it meet our reliable sources guideline I'm afraid. This won't stand up against article reviewers, policies and standards.
"It is common knowledge that Todmorden was on the western fringe of the area (the eastern part of which was known as Elmet) that remained Celtic..." - How so? I'm fairly local, but have never heard this. How can other users be sure you're not lying? Again, we need to see a reliable third-party published source.
"The reinterpretation of the so-called Anglo-Saxon invasion as one more of cultural realignment following some immigration rather than outright invasion and displacement has been addressed in the publications of Francis Pryor, President of the Council of British Archaeology" - this clearly pertains to the History of England, not Todmorden. A breif note on a Celtic/Germanic presence in Todmorden is more suitable, rather than any trans-national ethnic appropriation of Europe.
"Just so you don't feel justified in getting on your high horse again when I re-edit..." - please keep discussion polite at all times on Wikipedia.

If you take an interest in contributing to Wikipedia, particularly articles about British settlements, WP:UKCITIES is a good place to learn about standards and expectations of the editting community for these articles.

Hope that helps explain a little as to how to take this article forwards from here. Thanks for your understanding, and best of luck, -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article. - this is Wikipedia policy, not mine.

I'm afraid you didn't answer my questions.... What source are you using for your text? All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real shame you've decided to take such a stance over such a petty issue. Indeed I actually have the article's best interests at heart. I have well over two years of experience on Wikipedia, and thousands upon thousands of edits, as well as several awards for outstanding contributions and a relationship with the wider editting community that most here would be very envious/proud of.

You're clearly very, very new to Wikipedia - how do I know? You have a grand total of eight contributions to Wikipedia, three of which being (as I interpret) the agressively charged, negative and threatening messages you've left for me at my talk page. All of your edits are tracable and in the public domain.

If you feel that aggrieved by my contact about how to improve Todmorden, may I suggest you get the editting community involved by placing a message at the UK geography project talk page and see if there is a WP:CONSENSUS about providing third party sources for your contributions and maintaining a formal, impartial tone within text. Best of luck, and keep me informed of the outcome. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but given you haven't opted to involve others, or provided any source material, and instead continued to message me with somewhat belittling commentary on my talk page (where others have responded to you) there is little point in us taking this any further.

Perhaps if you would list your publications that may help out here? Also (as perhaps a final act of nurturing), multiple accounts are strongly discouraged, and tracable/linkable upon request of other users, so I hope you reconsider your position on this. Please also sign your comments in future. I've taken your feedback onboard; I hope you do the same with mine. Once again, best of luck for the future, -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]