User talk:DragonofBatley

KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Lawley Furnaces. This is not ready for publication as you have misrepresented what the sources say. Only two of the citations fully support what they are supposed to. 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, but do not move directly to mainspace without it having been verified first. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Hopton Top Wharf railway station. This is not ready for publication as you have misrepresented what the sources say. Either the citations do not support what they are supposed to or the sources are unreliable. 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, but do not move directly to mainspace without it having been verified first. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right I've calmed down. I've removed myself from the equation and now I'm willing to change. Now please @PamD, @Noswall59, @KJP1, @SchroCat and others. What about these articles needs changing. Please elaborate on each one and put the ones in front of me to sort out immediately. Fresh start, nothing more. New year, new learning. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask...

I think there are several ways in which you could change your editing for your fresh start.

Firstly, when considering creating an article on a topic, be sure that it is unquestionably notable. That doesn't just mean appearing on Google maps and getting mentioned by name, perhaps in a postal address, in a few sources. It doesn't just mean existing as a church which has regular services. It means having "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources: it means you having something non-routine to say about the place, church, or whatever. Yes, there's WP:NPLACE, where "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Civil parishes pass that bar. Areas of a city, suburbs, housing estates, business parks, etc don't automatically do so. I don't think wards do either, though opinions differ: to me, a ward is an area defined by a line drawn on a map for local electoral purposes, with a name of no significance to anyone outside the area, and has in general no place in an international encyclopedia. (That said, I think a list of wards or electoral divisions might well be a useful addition in the "Governance" section for a district or other entity to which people are elected by wards.)

Then, when looking at your sources, be sure that they actually support the statement you are adding to the article. Quite a lot of your refs seem to be "the place is mentioned in this source in google books so I'll add the reference to the article", rather than "here is a reference which supports this sentence about the place". Some of your references seem to lead to Google books links which don't make it at all clear why you're citing them. If the source is difficult to use, perhaps behind a paywall, or is a printed source, it can be useful to add the exact quote using the "quote" field of the ref.

But beyond that, it's editing carefully and taking note of things which other editors explain. I'm sure that someone has pointed out at some point that per WP:OPCOORD you don't need to, and in fact should not, give coordinates to 6 decimal points which is appropriate for an object about a metre/yard across, rather than a village. But on two days ago you created Gonerby Hill Foot to just that precision. (I'm calling it GHF from now on).

I spent quite a while today looking at that GHF article, so let's consider other problems with it as you left it:

• You left the article with its constituency showing as a red link: pretty obviously something was wrong, in this case you'd used "(parliament constituency)" instead of "(UK Parliament constituency)".
• "Town and Village Guide" is not a reliable source: for me, it shows up shaded in red when I look at an article as an editor: does it not for you? (It seems to be AI-generated with a lot of absolute rubbish: you might have been suspicious if you'd noticed that GHF was "once a thriving market town").
• I don't know what "Streetcheck" is, but I also don't know how it is defining "GHF" and where you got the 307 population from. It has a map showing an area which doesn't include the place labelled "GHF" on its own map. I doubt that the 307 figure is anything useful.
• "hill" is a standard English word and there's no need to link it
• Your ref 6 was nothing to do with the GHF school, but was an article about Gonerby House being used by The King's School, Grantham
• Your ref 7 was a link to a whole clutch of maps. If one of them actually illustrates "later residential and commercial developments", then make this clear
• You didn't create a talk page for the article.

It turns out that there is some interesting, reliably sourced, content, about GHF. I've expanded about the mounting block and Gonerby House, and@Rupples:, as I type, is going into details about civil parishes etc. I haven't yet added the Walter Scott connection (one of his characters falls into bad company at GHF), or the various mentions in old books about the Great North Road.

Your editing has improved over the years since stuff like this, from 2021, where you left a big blue map because the coordinates were wrong, put an Anglican church into a Catholic Diocese, didn't add any references, didn't format the External Links properly, linked to two disambiguation pages, and had a red link for grade listed rather than using a link to listed building. But there's still too many sources which don't seem to support the content, and bits of sheer carelessness. So perhaps slow down and produce a few carefully-polished articles, perhaps via AfC. The problem other editors have is that they don't like seeing badly-sourced, poorly-written articles about topics of questionable notability, which they know they can fix up to a better standard themselves but would rather see the original creator making a better job of, especially when it's an experienced editor who seems to create a stream of articles with problems needing fixing.

I've spent a lot of time today improving just one of your many recent articles, and I have changed my AfD vote from "weak keep" to "keep", but you can't rely on other people to tidy up after you. Please just take much more care. That quadruple checking you promised a while back seems to have slipped (how else to explain a redlinked parliamentary constituency?). Edit, then check, then check again and again if need be.

As I suggested a while back, you might like to have a go at some of @Crouch, Swale:'s Missing parishes. A civil parish is notable, usually has a parish council with a website, and a mention on the website of the next level up (district or county), and there's something which can be said about the places it includes; it can have an infobox with a map and there's usually a nice appropriate image of something central or general in Commons. But make sure that your sources support the statements you're using them to support.

As was said in the recent discussion, if you continue to add inadequately sourced material to the encyclopedia at the rate you have been doing, you may find yourself at WP:ANI, because people's patience will have run out.

If you're really going to "Start afresh" (yes, it's one word not two: you can "Make a fresh start", or "Start afresh"), then please slow down and edit much more carefully.

Well, you did ask. "New year, new learning" as you say - and there's always something new to learn about editing this amazing encyclopedia. Happy Editing! PamD 22:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I think this is good advice. As another suggestion how about only creating articles about civil parishes directly and if you want to creat other types of things like housing estates or even wards to use AFC? In terms of our inclusion guidelines I think over the last few years they have got tighter and in terms of WP:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES I don't know if being an OS settlement (those that come up as "Other Settlement example search for Wangford as opposed to "other feature" which I would assume would not be considered legally recognized) qualiy as being legally regognized. Similarly although wards probably wouldn't be census tracts its not clear if they qualify as legally recognized as they don't really have local government like parishes do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sure, I'll take some time to revert back to my earlier articles for like churches, suburbs and civil parishes. I'll take sometime to use my sandbox. Then put it to AfC and see what may or may not warrant an article as a standalone. Also I'll take sometime to fix my way of editing and spend sometime reworking my craft. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll add or edit to certain parishes categories to help keep them all in their relevant places like I did with Dawley Hamlets and Wrockwardine. Is it possible @Crouch, Swale, some Civil Parish councils warrant an article? Burbage Parish Council, Leicestershire? If AfC allows? DragonofBatley (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest rather than looking at creating articles for places within parishes to instead only create articles on the parishes. A parish like Category:Dawley Hamlets could maybe have its own category but I'd probably suggest generally only creating categories with 5 of more articles and as I said I'd suggest not to create (for now) places in parishes except with AFC. In terms of the parish councils I'd suggest being careful as most probably aren't notable Burbage Parish Council probably isn't notable. If you can find enough coverage some of the largest and most important parishes like Weston-super-Mare Town Council and Salisbury City Council might have articles but any where the parish name only exists as a parish like Dawley Hamlets or South Swindon should not be created as they would duplicate the parish article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a parish council is almost never going to need a separate article from the parish: please don't go down that road. PamD 23:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burbage Parish Council, Leicestershire seems totally unnecessary: I have proposed that it be merged into Burbage, Leicestershire, where it could form a "Governance" section. The reader does not benefit from fragmentation like this. Please do not create any more articles like this for parish councils. Thanks. PamD 23:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD and others have given you very good advice. Your following it, and your commitment to put any new article you want to create through the AfC process, should go a very long way towards avoiding future problems. That leaves the 400-odd articles you've created to date. I think you need to put the effort into identifying and correcting any errors that there may be. I'm willing to help you in doing this. I suggest you start at the top, with the most recent, and I will start with the oldest at the bottom. Look at each article through the lens Pam outlines. Is it unquestionably Notable, under our guidelines? Is there sufficient coverage, not mere mentions, in a range of Reliable Sources to support the Notability judgement? If there isn't, think about possible Merge locations, as Pam has done here, Burbage Parish Council, Leicestershire. If that isn't the answer, think about proposing Deletion, as I did here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonerby Hill Foot, which has generated a wide discussion, and seen improvements to the article. I suggest we review, say, 20 each over the next few days, and then take a look at each other's inputs. Your undertaking to review your own work offers a real opportunity to show that you understand the policies/guidance on Notability and Sourcing, and are able to make appropriate judgements in these areas. It also gives you the opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to "starting afresh". KJP1 (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woods Bank is on my watchlist so recent edits brought it back to my mind. Looking at the article history reminds me of a major problem with Dragon's work on it: he wrote "At one point, it was one of the most expensive places to live in the West Midlands between 1841 and 1871 due to housing stocks increasing by up to 87%." From the same source I changed this to "The number of houses in the Woods Bank area increased by up to 87% between 1841 and 1871, and a sanitary report of 1875 describes a dwelling there as of one lower and one upper room, with no ventilation or back door. The area was described as "a distinct location of poor ironworkers".

If Dragon can misunderstand a source so badly, and add completely false and misleading information to the encyclopedia, is he safe to continue editing here? Was it tired (or worse) late night editing? What happened? I'm not sure that an AfC checker would have picked this up, as it's got a reliable source, although in this case totally misinterpreted. It's worrying. PamD 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is problematic. As you know, some expressed a very firm view in the discussion on my Talkpage that it should go to ANI. Is that the consensus? KJP1 (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ANI would probably be a beneficial step. This would not be to get some punishment against DragonofBatley, but to get a consensus - logged into the record - that any further problematic content can lead to some form of punishment without the need for ANI again. Such editing restrictions are not uncommon where there has been an ongoing pattern of problematic behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is relevant previous discussion at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Archive 10#DoB (@Yngvadottir:) and at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked.

I suggest we need to consider some system of restrictions which will protect the encyclopedia from Dragon's mistakes and careless edits, while if possible not totally depriving him of the joy of editing. (I can imagine how lost I would feel if this hobby was removed from me.) But I'm not sure what can be done. PamD 14:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that there is a consensus that this should go to ANI. I shall file a report tomorrow and notify User:DragonofBatley when I do. KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1, PamD, and SchroCat: I can think of several restrictions that could be imposed either an official editing restriction or advisory, I'll start with the least restrictive. (1) You can only create new articles directly on civil parishes, all others need to go through AFC. (2) You can only create new articles (on any topic) through AFC. (3) You can only create new articles through AFC on civil parishes and can't even use AFC for other topics. (4) You can't create new articles on any topic even through AFC. Any thoughts on theses suggestions (including from DragonofBatley). I think some sort of restriction would help both the project as a whole and would also be helpful for DragonofBatley as it would reduce the amount of criticism you get. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But not all the problematic editing has been in the creation of new articles: sometimes it's mangling existing articles, perhaps by confusing east with west or misunderstanding how {{convert}} works, so rules about article creation won't protect the encyclopedia in full. PamD 21:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As here, with edit summary "Overhauling article with new infobox tabs and removed an entry about a irrelevant church to the article" when the church in question, although originally built elsewhere, was moved to the village and rebuilt - though you had to read the second sentence of the paragraph to see this. Careless destruction. (I replaced the church). And the infobox apparently had the wrong constituency. PamD 21:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI are aware now so I will leave this to them to further discuss. I offered to change for good and actually work at the issues but ANI is still going ahead according to @KJP1, so it was not really something I could make viable if I tried because I'll fix my edits and still likely be restricted. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So ive just agreed to a new start and still editors want me to be restricted? So i made a pact to improve for nothing? ANI is now happening regardless? I apologise alright. If its too late. Then maybe i should just leave? I have made an effort to start like i did on Annesley South Junction Halt earlier with one source. This feels like its more about restricting regardless of agreeing to fix my ways. Is that fair assessment I have reached? DragonofBatley (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And if its about protecting the encyclopedia. Then it is clear I am the one who should be protected from editing. @KJP1, I think your jumping the gun wanting to take me to ANI. I see no concensus but three or four editors. I feel without wording it insultingly. That it is a case of tell me to stop ✋️, think 🤔 and stop ✋️. I have zero reasons to be restricted in terms of actually acknowledging my flaws and errors and agreeing to fix the ones needed. I cannot do that if I am then restricted further from fixing them and being able to edit. I have contributed good articles to such as may I bring to mind 10 articles. Where I have been thanked and good rating given:

• St Lawrence's Church, Bardney
• Borough of Chesterfield
• City of York
• Borough of Middlesbrough
• City of Peterborough
• Dawley Hamlets articles
• Cromford and High Peak Railway
• Borough of Slough
• Central Methodist Church, Lincoln
• Borough of Blackpool

These are just some examples of the many articles I have created that actually have benefited the encyclopedia and I helped to give them a platform. Similar to Lawley Village railway station, Spring Village railway station, Doseley and Wasps Nest among others. So i have done good too. It hurts to be honest, I feel this is robbing me of a chance to actually improve when I have said this time I will actually begin to do so and agreeing to AfC. That feels like it was a false positive and promise.

I dont know what more I can do to prove it when I have agreed to i dunno anymore. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above; the 400-odd articles broadly break down into three categories:

• Places - hamlets / villages / parishes / wards / suburbs / economic areas;
• Churches;
• Train stations.

On Notability, we have WP:GEOLAND, etc. for Places; we have similar for Churches, and Wikipedia:Places of local interest, including whether they are Listed. I am much less sure about the Notability of train stations, particularly former train stations. Looking at this, Annesley South Junction Halt railway station, both sources seem to be blogs, although the first does look very well-researched, and appears to be used in many articles. And looking at this, Checker House railway station, it is clear that at least some of the articles are capable of significant expansion. I've asked a question, here, which may help. Does anyone have thoughts/experience on how best we assess Notability for these? KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On stations, I've found a discussion at WP:RSN about RailScot which concludes that it is not a WP:RS (so wouldn't support notability) but can be added as an External Link, like IMDb. Non-notable stations could be redirected to articles on the line they are on, which will mention them but perhaps only in a route map which needs to be clicked open for "find in page" to work - eg Great Central Main Line. PamD 10:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful again. I've AfD'd one that was very weakly sourced [see below], and we may well be able to use the outcome of that discussion when considering the others. KJP1 (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1. From my involvement in AfDs of railway stations, if found not notable the consensus is to redirect or sometimes merge to the railway line they are on. A difficulty is where a station serves more than one line, but this type is more likely to be notable. Rupples (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DragonofBatley,

I was reviewing the ANI discussion you started and wanted to offer you some advice. I think the best way to handle to an ANI complaint is to make an initial statement, laying out your side of the story and then only post to respond to questions that are raised where editors are seeking to hear your answer. Do not comment on every single post made by other editors or you could be digging yourself into a hole. If you find yourself repeating the same point over and over (like your "joke edit"), then it's definitely time to stop talking about it. It could also be seen as BLUDGEONing a discussion and, to be perfectly honest, posting dozens of comments can annoy editors who review cases on AN and ANI and it's better to have their support.

I know there is an instinct to defend yourself when you are being discussed but it is often best to just comment when your response is solicited so you don't overwhelm the conversation. No one enjoys being brought to ANI so I was very surprised to see you open this case about yourself but, so far, it looks like everybody is being relatively reasonable. Good luck on obtaining an agreeable resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, thanks for your post. I will take your suggestion on board. I tried to only respond where needed. But will make sure to only do so when needed. Thank you kindly. DragonofBatley (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A list of places/landmarks I believe could warrant a place in Wikipedia articles. (Feel free to discuss my suggestions below) These were ones I had in mind to begin with.:

• Places of Worship (Chapels, Churches, Mosques etc):
• Shropshire/Telford and Wrekin
• Christ Church (Wellington) - Grade II listed church, built in 1838.
• All Saints Church, Wellington - Grade II* listed church, built in 1788. - Currently awaiting Articles for Creation feedback and decision. (Now live)
• St Peter's Church (Wrockwardine) - Grade I listed church, built in the 12th century.
• Holy Trinity Church (Wrockwardine Wood and Trench) - Built in 1833.

• Places that could be notable:
• Shropshire/Telford and Wrekin
• Arleston (Wellington) - A suburb of Wellington.
• Ercall (Wellington) - A suburb of Wellington.
• Dothill (Wellington) - A suburb of Wellington.
• Apley Castle - A settlement between Leegomery and Wellington.
• Sutton Hill - A suburb of Madeley
• Hadley Manor - An area of Hadley
• Trench Lock - An area of Trench
• Horton and Hoo - Small settlements in the Hadley and Leegomery Parish
• Wombridge - A suburban area north of Oakengates
• Red Lake - An area between Ketley and Oakengates
• Ketley Bank - A suburban area of Oakengates

These are mostly areas of interest right now. I will begin on my sandbox. Ask for input from editors at AfC and I can only do 5 at any time until one has been either approved or rejected. DragonofBatley (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently completed All Saints Church, Wellington. Link to draft page here [1]. Also hopefully shows I am keeping to my agreement of AfC DragonofBatley (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the churches, St Peter's Church, Wrockwardine has a very detailed and mostly well-sourced section in the village article, and as of a couple of minutes ago it has a redirect from its own name, and an entry in the dab page at St. Peter's Church. It doesn't need a new article. Holy Trinity Wrockwardine Wood is grade II listed, but might be better covered in a section of Wrockwardine Wood as there doesn't seem to be much to say about it.

On the "suburbs" and "areas": please don't create articles on vaguely-defined places, or electoral wards. That's what has led, at least in part, to the present situation: you have had to scrape the barrel to find sources, and not all of them have been good (think "haven, village"). Stick with clearly identifiable topics on which you can find good reliable sources.

Please read the various talk page comments on All Saints Church, Wellington, and note the work done by other editors on it, and learn from them. Thanks. PamD 12:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will. I will also use the sandbox for my articles. See if sources exist and if there is any notable evidence or notability it could be given an article at AfC. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing exists for it, I will not attempt to make it. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Monks Road. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to go back and proofread and edit your recent ANI post. Either consciously or subliminally, editors are going to notice the carelessness of letting Autocorrect write "persephone" for "perspective", as well as all the missing apostrophes and uncapitalised "i"s, and think the worse of your competence to edit. While we all type sloppily on talk pages, ANI is a more serious venue. Just as someone going to a disciplinary hearing at work would probably smarten up, comb their hair etc, it would benefit you if you presented yourself in words more carefully. Please do yourself a favour! PamD 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will go back now edit it thanks for the heads up. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen your edit to Holme Lacy.

Why did you remove the "See also" which provided the only link to the church?

Why did you use absurdly overprecise decimal coords when the article already had sensible ones?

I think I saw some other concerns but I'm on my phone and can't easily go back.

There are certainly some problems, such as copying of large chunks of promotional text from the village hall website along with an inline external link.

I'm glad to see you didn't remove unsourced text, but frankly it seems inappropriate right now for you to be peppering other editors' work with {{cn}} tags. Just keep a low profile while the ANI is open. PamD 19:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also left it with two "References" sections and a category lacking a closing square bracket. Do you look at the results of your edits?

If you want to continue editing, you need to demonstrate the ability and willingness to do so carefully. PamD 19:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dragonof Batley, I'm taking a look at some of 'your' railway station articles. Enjoy reading them, so thanks for creating them. Hopefully I'll be able to expand some. So far not seeing anything worth drawing to your attention. Any minor points, I'll just go ahead and revise. Cheers. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Enjoy DragonofBatley (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1 and @Cremastra. Is this correct as quoted by @Tryptofish I (DoB) are "indefinitely restricted from publishing new articles to mainspace, converting redirects to articles, or submitting drafts to AfC. This restriction is appealable in six months only if DragonofBatley participates in a cleanup project of articles that he has created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs)."? Also quickly pinging @Voorts and @PamD who responded to this section? If this the concensus I am fine with it so that puts me a deadline of 18th July 2025 to be proactive, sticking to this proposal and working to clean up the other articles while also not banning me but temporarly not allowing me to make new articles? Let me know if I have read that correctly as I have also read the paragraphs above the ANI DragonofBatley (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the proposed outcome, yes. But you should wait until Voorts finalises it. Then we'll all be completely clear and we can talk about how to review the articles you've already created. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay no worries, btw @KJP1 I have replied on the Hollyhurst Nomination Deletion discussion. I also will keep any new articles exclusive to my sandbox so I at least have some to form of creation, even if on my own talk page. I am going to take some more looks at the previous articles. How far are we going back? I mean like the last six months or year? DragonofBatley (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cremastra (u — c) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Civil parishes in Telford and Wrekin has been nominated for deletion. 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 10:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DragonofBatley, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Magnus, Newark-on-Trent, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnus, Newark-on-Trent.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cremastra}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Cremastra (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cremastra (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DragonofBatley, I hope you're well. As you know, KJP1 and I have been looking over the articles you've written. Here's some initial guidance for general trends I've seen, so you know what's good and what needs changing.

• Grammar and prose are always clear
• Layout is solid – thanks for always including infoboxes
• Notability – here's where you'll need to be careful. Check that the place you want to write about meets WP:NPLACE or WP:NATFEAT. For settlements, if it's legally recognized and is or was populated – even if its population is low – it's notable and you can write the article.
• Verification – the sources you cite should always verify the actual content. Make sure you're citing the census websites if you're referring to census data, and don't include citations just for the name of a place. Phone books and marginal references are less useful.

I hope this helps with your future articles.

Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does, ill note this in my sandbox for a major read through. Thanks @Cremastra. DragonofBatley (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A populate place in the UK with a population of 4,120; it seems reasonable to have this separate from the broader Melton Mowbray.

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) 22:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article fails verification against the sources provided and much of the infobox is entirely unsourced. Klbrain, did you check that the references supported what the article claimed? - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per protocol I check a sample of the sources, including the demographic data (which does match the source) and confirmed independently that the ward exists (formal name Melton Egerton). I imagine that your query is prompted by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Me (DragonofBatley). Klbrain (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following a discussion at AN/I, the community has determined that the following indefinite editing restrictions apply:

1. DragonofBatley is restricted from making any edits in article mainspace, category space, or redirects, except for those described in (3), below.
2. DragonofBatley is restricted from creating any new articles or drafts, whether in userspace or draft space, and against making any submissions to Articles for Creation.
3. DragonofBatley is expected to participate in a cleanup project of articles that he has previously created, to be coordinated by KJP1 (talk · contribs) and Cremastra (talk · contribs), and with the participation of other interested editors.

These restrictions may be appealed only if DragonofBatley successfully demonstrates improvement in the cleanup project described in (3). Restrictions may be reduced progressively over time, as a function of demonstrated improvement. Such appeals are to be made at WP:AN, and any request for complete revocation of these restrictions shall not be considered for a minimum of six months. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Great Wyrley Wesley Methodist Church has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:NCHURCH.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cremastra (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Spalding Common has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Apparently, this place does not even exist. Please see: User talk:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB#Spalding Common. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DragonofBatley, I've noticed you using the term "first recorded" in a number of articles. Unless a source specifically states this, you are making your own assumption. Part of you recent edit (since amended) on Spalding Common you wrote The halmet [sic] was first recorded in 1892 as a "thickly populated suburb in the west of Spalding". The source, although from 1892, doesn't state Spalding Common was first recorded in 1892 and you (and I) don't know when something was first recorded unless a reliable source explicitly says so. In this case, there's mentions of Spalding Common in local newspapers far earlier than 1892. Please don't take this as a reprimand, it is however something to be aware of. Rupples (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rupples. That's fine I'll bare it in mind. Regards DragonofBatley (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing restrictions forbid live mainspace changes to anything you have not created. Perhaps you have not fully understood this? Thank you.-- 82.13.47.210 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a false assumption in this edit: [[2]]. I didn't add any of these so and your wording. Lapsed Inexperienced Editor. Sounds like an insult then constructive and has nothing to do with me, so i feel you should retract that sentence. Also @KJP1 and @Cremastra are heading up my cleaning up of my articles and improvements. So if I stray. They can pull me up for it. Thanks and happy editing. Note: I have now withdrawn my earlier post as I felt it was aimed at me, not another editor. DragonofBatley (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but I strongly urge the IP to retract their earlier comment regarding an assumption of me at St James' Church, Louth. Accusing me of Inexperienced Lapsed Editor and claiming I made that gallery when I did not @SchroCat. It appears as an insult and quite blatantly rude of the IP. I don't appreciate it and they've had no gull to even retract and apologise for their assumption. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley The IP's comment had nothing to do with you at all. The images were added by Michael Rowe (who edited off and on since 2004, including adding a lot of his own photos, but nothing since 2023). The IP's edit summary gave a link to that edit. Why do you think the IP was insulting you? Calm down, please. If you "report" something like this you'll find a very swift "Boomerang" response.

But the IP is making a valid point: you should not be editing articles like Tatenhill, which you didn't create and, as far as I can see, have never edited before. You should be concentrating on cleaning up the articles you have created. Thanks for adding a source for Jonathan Hellyer's date of birth, as requested. PamD 12:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to withdraw your totally unfounded post on the IP's talk page at User talk:82.13.47.210#Your assumption. PamD 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay @PamD, it just appeared as an insult to me with using lapsed inexperienced editor. As I am currently under restrictions. If the IP meant not me I apologise. It is just on my watchlist and it appeared they mentioned me. No worries no harm done if not me. Also no probs with adding Jonathan Hellyer date of birth. I am currently working on the articles I made for the Cromford and High Peak Railway as well as updating them. And adding sources where needed. Still a WIP so hopefully I can provide some good sources for them. Again apologies to IP, just have St James' Church, Louth on my watchlist and thought it meant me with the wording. Mistake, live and learn. Ill remove my contribution to their talkpage. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already have. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just down to those two to pull you up if you stray. The IP is right and any editor can report you to ANI for breaching the restrictions you are under. I strongly suggest you only work on the articles you have created - breaching restrictions can lead to further removal of editing privileges, which I am sure is not what anyone wants. - SchroCat (talk)

No problems ; I was trying to help here, as I am amongst "...other interested editors" as stated in the editing restrictions. I wanted to nip-in-the-bud any uncertainty over editing restrictions as I can see how important it (continuation of editing) is here. I intended to comment on the massively tl;dr AN/I when it was impassed (which I followed incrementally, but attracted few uninvolved comments), however someone slapped a silverlock on before closure.

I am nowadays mainly gnoming around anything I find interesting, and I have a number of problem areas/articles involving image galleries (and including individual images) which cause massive difficulties to visually-impaired users of screen readers where there is no alt text included in the description. Thank you all for your attentions, particularly PamD who has been a star for so long now.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made one tweak and that was linking Friden and Longcliffe to the Cromford and High Peak Railway. To avoid redirects or confusion. But still working on my articles as I go. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the demolition claim as “unsourced”. The source says, “The Greenock Telegraph reports (2024) that listed building consent is being sought for demolition”. Why did you remove the content? KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake sorry. Didnt see the source. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article on a living person has had an apparently unsourced date of birth since you created it in March 2023. Please add your source. Thanks. PamD 21:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding a source. I'm not sure it's the most reliable of sources, but it's much better than an unsourced blp birthdate. I tweaked the ref a bit to include the website name. PamD 14:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I now see that in your edits to that page you linked to a disambiguation page Nightingale (disambiguation). Why? A link to a disambiguation page is almost always wrong, yet you piped the link so presumably linked deliberately. You may have meant The Nightingales, but I wouldn't know.

In the "Personal life" section you didn't leave a space after a ref before "He took part" and for some reason you piped a link to include "Shaw Theatre in" as the link text. Why?

Given that you are supposed to be demonstrating that you are a competent editor, this is disappointing. That's three apparent mistakes in one edit. Please go back and tidy up. Thanks. PamD 17:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PamD, I've addressed your concerns. Hopefully so. Regards DragonofBatley (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @DragonofBatley:, please see WP:TALK#REPLIED, where it says that you shouldn't remove a post of your own if someone else has replied to it. Just strike it through if you change your mind. You've left my mention of "reporting" looking a bit odd as it was in response to the post you have deleted. Thanks. PamD 14:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sorry, I was just trying remove any annoyance at the IP. Sorry, I will have to teach myself how to strike a comment in future not needed. DragonofBatley (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is <s> ... </s>. We're all still learning - I struggle with tables but usually manage, by carefully copying code from elsewhere and not giving up till it looks right!PamD 17:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I will use that in future. As i quoted KJP1 use of Historic England listing. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent approach to AN/I, you should not delete the section when it has been replied to; it should remain as part of the page history. You should've replied below, formally withdrawing the request. Again, slow down and think.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re-read your editing restriction (see above). I think your edits of yesterday to Warslow and Ecton, Staffordshire, [3]/[4], contravene your restriction. What do you think? KJP1 (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bit but in my defense I also linked the stations which are subject to review and I just made a small tweak to the district and county since it is inline with other settlements like Leek and Biddulph. I won't edit further mainspace articles now, only if linking my articles relevant to said settlement. DragonofBatley (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not "a bit": completely outside your restrictions. That's the second time you've done it in a very short space of time, given the warnings you were given here only two days ago. Let me make this crystal clear for you: you are not allowed to edit anything at all unless they are on the list of articles that you started. If you edit any other articles that are not on that list, you will be reported at ANI for breaching your editing restrictions. It doesn't matter if they are linked to the articles you started, or similar to, or related to: you are not allowed to edit anything that isn't on KJP1's list. Is that clear? You better be sure that's clear, because you're likely to be blocked without any further warnings if you breach the restrictions for a third time. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact its six months is overburdened. Three-Four months sure but six months. What do i do once the list is completed and have say two months left? Do i have to sit it out until June? Or can I then appeal to have my restrictions lifted beforehand. Cause many of these articles are now either deleted, merged, kept or under review/discussion. Please @SchroCat and @KJP1 i want to know really. Cause if I have to wait until June once this done and there's nothing more to do to even be able to edit again. Then where does it end? And also despite the fact I'm actually trying to improve. I'm still apparently doing this and that wrong. And trying but not making any improvements despite it. So what do I do if I'm trying but others decide I'm not worth allowing further editing freedom? DragonofBatley (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you think it's "overburdened" or not: you are under restrictions which, within one week, you've managed to breach twice. You need to stick to editing only the articles which you created which are on KJP's list. If you manage to finish the 400+ articles on the list within six months (which I think unlikely) and you haven't been blocked by then (again, unlikely), then I am sure the restrictions will be lifted. In the meantime, and as you are still making errors, then the experience of clearing up the articles guided by the several people who are leaving you messages on what not to do and how to improve, can only help your output. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]