Hello, BradfordPal1, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (bananaphone 19:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Talk:Bradford. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Charles (
talk)
20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Bradford, you may be
blocked from editing.
Charles (
talk)
19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
In case it hasn't been made clear previously: BEFORE you add or return challenged content to an article, YOU must provide a reliable source that supports the claims made. Repeated attempts to insert unsupported claims will get you blocked from editing. (as will disrupting an article talk page with inappropriate assertions of your righteous cause.) Active Banana (bananaphone 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully not,but i don't believe for a minute this is about unsupported claims. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 19:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Bradford, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Active
Banana
(bananaphone
19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have a strange idea of free speech.I don't agree that i've disrupted anything,the TWO landmarks..the Bronte Sisters birth place in Thornton and the UNESCO world heritage site IN Saltaire need to be included in the Bradford landmark section,i believe whoever is responsible for the Bradford page to be the real vandal or vandals. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 20:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
As i said previously,i don't believe for a minute this has anything to do with verification or unsupported claims for that matter,anyone who read my sons edit insert would understand that.Any one who would allow a person of no worth born in Dewsbury who murdered his victims and disposed of their body parts in Saltaire to be mentioned on the Bradford page yet not to allow Sir Titus Salt onto the Bradford page..he was a great humanitarian and Bradford Mayor who i believe was born in Morley who built his village in Saltaire which is a UNESCO world heritage site,the mind boggles at that piece of editing,the Bradford page is a misrepresentation and damages the image of the City. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 21:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Verify what lol ....i don't believe verification is the problem ,try reading my sons insert...i'm sure you'll get the gist of it.... The Brontë sisters were born in Thornton which was incorporated into the City of Bradford in 1899 , but wrote most of their novels while living at the Haworth Parsonage (which is now a museum owned and maintained by the Brontë Society), when their father was the parson at the adjacent Church of St. Michael and All Angels. The house in which the Brontë sisters were born in is situated on Market Street Thornton,Bradford (Charlotte-1816,Emily Jane-1818 and Anne-1820) is a grade11 listed building,one of 5,800 in Bradford and can be visited on the way to Haworth parsonage around 5 miles away. To the North of the City lies the UNESCO World Heritage site at Saltaire,the village was built in 1853 for his mill workers by the Bradford mill owner Sir Titus Salt.Sir Titus Salt was the largest employer in Bradford at the time and also became Lord Mayor of the Town.There is a superb statue of Sir Titus situated in the newly refurbished Roberts Park in Saltaire. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Listening no,reading yes,but only if it makes sense do you act on that...unfortunately as i'm sure you know lol this has nothing to do with verification ,you only have to read the original objections to my sons edit insert to realise that,i believe that some are using the Bradford page to create a negative image of the City,the fact that there is no mention of the Bronte birth place which lies within the old 1899 Bradford City boundary or indeed Sir Titus Salt and his magnificent UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE village but there are plenty of nrgatives about the City which seem to be embraced with open arms leads me to the conclusion that the page is being used to reinforce negative stereo types in regards to the City of Bradford.The page is an utter disgrace. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 09:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am reporting you to the 3RR noticeboard for continued edit warring.-- Charles ( talk) 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
That really is sad....Whoever is responsible for the Bradford wikipedia page is actually damaging the Cities image and is probably costing the city of Bradford considerable amounts of money.The page as it stands is simply a misrepresentation and an utter disgrace. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 20:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I also know the feeling of wasting my time lol i haven't got a clue about the evading bit of your post ,my son posted the original edit insert then came back with the same tag,that's hardly evading is it,he told me i'd be wasting my time and so far he's been proved correct....on your point about editing....I find it amazing that people would edit putting in content that is basically rubbish,what's the thinking behind that,having looked on the Bradford page,the editing there is shocking,the page is basically a misrepresentation of the City.The idea that the cannibal killer get's a mention but the great humanitarian Sir Titus Salt doesn't is a disgrace.The Bronte sisters birth place has been within the City boundaries since Thornton was incorporated into the City in 1899 yet doesn't get mentioned in the Bradford Landmark section,stranger than fiction some would say. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 21:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello BradfordPal1,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Edit warring policy at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~
NekoBot (
MeowTalk)
20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive?
Report it!)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Mjroots ( talk) 20:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
As you are probably aware, I am the admin who blocked your son for edit warring and breaching the Sockpuppet policy. It is permissible to have more than one account, but it was they way that the accounts were being used that led to the block. Although you are blocked, you are able to edit this talk page. As I said at the talk page of the Bradford article, your account is being used as a meatpuppet, which is also against policy. I could have blocked you indefinitely for the edit warring, and no admin would have raised an eyebrow over the block. Once the block expires, you are free to edit Wikipedia, but I would caution against re-adding that material to the Bradford article, or the next block will be indefinite. It is long-standing consensus that the info should not be in the Bradford article because at the time that the Brontë's and Salt were alive, those locations were not part of Bradford, but lay outside its boundaries. Mjroots ( talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info,my son is a very talanted guitarist who obviously spends alot of time either playing or practising,the impression i'm getting is that he's done what he can in the limited spare time he has and he's not prepared to... as he see's it, waste any more time in regards to the wikipedia page.I'll certainly ask him though,and thanks for the information in regards to his position. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If the consensus has come up with the Bradford page as it is today,how on earth can it be changed for the better,it's a disgracful misrepresentation of the City of Bradford and is actually damaging the City's image.The negative stereo typing only adds to the downbeat vibe given when reading the page.I'm sure you're a good man/woman,sorry i don't know your gender but please read it then try reading the Leeds page or Leicester page or any other of the large City pages.I'm proud of my roots as are all my family,i'm simply asking someone to take a look ,someone who can do something to put Bradford's page on a par with all the other large City pages.Thanks for taking the time to answer my last post. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi James,Thanks for the suggestions,yes,maybe the bull in the china shop wasn't the best way forward. The point i've made on a few occasions is that the Bradford page doesn't match any of the other large wikipedia City pages,for me the consensus have come up with a Bradford page that has a negative view of the City.I've looked at many big City pages and none have sections pointing out mass murdereers or riots.I find those sections a disgrace,after all there are far more violent City's in the UK than Bradford yet Bradford seems to be getting special negative wikipedia editing.I'm not asking for the Bradford page to get any special treatment,i'm asking for the page to get the same tratment as the rest of the large City pages featured in wikipedia.The Leeds,Glasgow and Belfast wikipedia pages are superb and so should be the Bradford wikipedia page. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
Bradford. When removing content, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Fæ (
talk)
21:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Just had a quick look see at the Leeds link,it isn't actually like for like as it's not under a crime heading as on the Bradford wikipedia page.I certainly wouldn't have any objections if the Bradford page followed that example. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Bradford with
this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Monty
845
22:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Point taken,maybe move the Bradford crime section as with the Leeds page would be a good idea,i've made a couple of comments on the Bradford talk page,crime section,i'll leave it at that and see what the consensus thinks. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edit to the page
Bradford with
this edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been
reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be
verifiable in a
reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please
cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's
talk page. Please use the
sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.
WikiPuppies! (
bark)
00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.-- J3Mrs ( talk) 20:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Bradford. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.-- Charles ( talk) 22:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Elockid (
Talk)
12:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Bradford, you may be
blocked from editing. Adding content and inline links against consensus yet again.
Harkey (
talk)
19:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
How is adding information regarding Bradford's Jewish connection and Titus Salt's attempt to reduce Bradford's smoke pollution in 1849 regarded as disruptive editing.What consensus has actually said anything against those edits.I certainly have only had one person disagreeing with my recent edits,that doesn't add up to any sort of consensus.To describe my edits as vandalism seems odd.I know wikipedia does get lots of bad edits from people who are just messing about but my edits are hopefully enlightening wikipedia readers in regards to information on Bradford's history. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi...i actually thought it was the same person removing my inserts,to find out that there are more, that is even more perplexing.What on earth anyone has against these inserts is beyond me.I'd have thought the Jewish information was key to understanding Bradford's success in becoming the City it was and is today.The Bronte insert into the notable Bradfordians is simply adding what has been there for the previous few months,i also had a peek on the page a couple of years ago and the Bronte sisters info was also there on the notable Bradfordian list.The Titus Salt insert regarding the Rodda Smoke Burner is key to understanding why he moved to Saltaire. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 11:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks,i could maybe understand one edit being objected to,but all of my inserts reverted by all four editors,that seems odd in the extreme,i feel that i've done everything in regards to linking my edits,i've added bits to the talk Bradford section.I can't except the Jewish immigrants being ignored on the Bradford page when in the 19th and 20th century they did so much for the Town and City of Bradford.The Rodda Smoke Burner in regards to Titus Salt also seems like a no brainer. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 13:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi BradfordPal1. I've just edited an article you previously edited, and taken the liberty of coming here and reading your talkpage; d'you mind if i offer a suggestion? As someone who was brought up in two different cities (two countries), and who has lived in five or six more, and assorted towns, too, i have no great allegiance to any city, and i rather envy you yours. Perhaps, nevertheless, it might behove you to take a step back from Bradford itself, and make some further edits, elsewhere. This will have a dual effect, i think, in that it will both help establish your reputation as a good editor, a member of the community, and it will give you experience in how Wikipedia works, because it is by no means intuitive nor obvious. In a way, i think you've maybe begun this process with your edit to Humbert Wolfe.
You'll notice, if you look, that i have changed it slightly, and i think my change might help you further your cause. First, the information was put in the middle of a sentence about Wolfe's Jewish background; in fact, it separated the statement of that background and the explanation of it. Second, when you put it in, you used a comma with no space after it; i notice here, on your page, that you tend to type that way, and that's fine, for talk pages, but not for the articles themselves; it isn't correct usage, so i urge you to proofread any edits you make before you save them. The "Preview" button, next to "Save page", is excellent for that. Third, you'll see that i added a template asking for a citation for the fact you added. In other words, how do you know it? can you prove it? where can i go to discover its truth? This is what we call verification, and is required. May i suggest you find a reference for this fact, and add it to Wolfe's article, as your next step? I'm sorry if i'm being pushy, or unwelcome; i've seen that you don't feel welcomed, though, and i assure you that, really, you are. If i can help in any way, just ask, or respond here, as your talk page is now on my watchlist. Cheers, Lindsay Hello 06:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lindsay,thanks for the input in regards to Humbert Wolfe, it does read better. I don't know about not being welcomed, i guess i was sad that the Bradford page had been neglected and was basically a poor reflection on the City. I'm actually in the process of adding pages on the influence the German Jewish migrants had on the Town/City of Bradford, Richard Eurich being the next page i'll be producing. Once i've added all that content on various Bradfordians, i'll maybe have a look at other pages in regards to editing. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 13:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
"How many times do we have to tell you that you cannot have an inline external link. Use references or external links!" You have had edits undone for consistently doing this. I have removed an edit from history and moved it to a more suitable place -religion, and correctly referenced it. I learned to do this by copying fron citations in the text. Next time I will just revert it. You've been editing for long enough to start learning how to do things properly now.-- J3Mrs ( talk) 12:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of writing a biography , thought i'd put a bit of info regarding the Russian Jews which i'd added a while back..back on, i don't agree by the way that it should just be in the religion section. I've yet to master the references bit, for me you can revert away as i keep all the info and i can add it all once i've got to grips with everything in regards to Wikipedia editing. I believe your input has improved the page immeasurably, hopefully mine has also been of some use.Take it easy BradfordPal1 ( talk) 13:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought the biggest problem with it was that it misrepresented the City, i couldn't believe my eyes when i first read the page a couple of years back. A total disgrace. Read my post above, i'm far from going my own sweet way. Thanks for the info regarding references. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 14:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed Behrens yet again, he is mentioned in history. Please do not keep adding to this list people mentioned in the text. Thank you.-- J3Mrs ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yet again,i'd only noticed him being removed once. How on earth am i supposed to know who's removing what exactly. Obviously there is alot of editing going on, it's not a consensus of one. As far as i'm aware Behrens had been on the Bradford page list since i put him there a week or so ago, at least until today,i saw he had disappeared so simply added him again, no big deal, you've explained your thinking, i'll leave it at that,although on this occasion i've no idea on the thought process behind this removal, as it makes no sense, a notable Bradfordian is surely a notable BRADFORDIAN WHETHER HE'S BEEN MENTIONED in the ABOVE text OR OTHER WISE..I still believe the job you and others have done on editing and improving the Bradford page is excellent. Hopefully you wont take my differences on three or four edits to heart.
The absurdity of a Bradford page with no mention of the Jewish connection to the town and City is what was on offer only a few weeks ago along with other glaring ommisions.That had to be addressed or else the whole page would be a joke, that's where local knowledge comes in. I'm not here to upset anyone but i want this page to be a correct representation of the town and City through the ages and i believe we're getting there. Take it easy... BradfordPal1 ( talk) 00:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Stop adding strange formatting to articles such as Friederich Wilhelm Eurich.-- J3Mrs ( talk) 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't added any strange formatting as you strangly put it. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added
links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see
Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. --
J3Mrs (
talk)
08:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You do know what they say about sarcasm, if you don't actually know what i'm trying to do, i wont bother explaining the obvious. Keep up the good work in regards to the Bradford page. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 13:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Bradford. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
What's disruptive about highlighting the very important Jewish connection to Bradford in the 19th and early 20th century. It seems there is no thought of anyone being disruptive if misleading stuff is added about Pakistan or Muslims in regards to the Bradford page ( eg the bottom sentence in the demographics section is obviously the figure for the whole district not the settlement) i pointed this out on the Bradford talk page weeks ago but lo and behold it never even got an answer and certainly didn't get removed, very odd. Yet i highlight the Jewish contribution and i'm threatened with being blocked. Very sad, but i'm not surprised. I'm quite sure that if for what ever reason someone added wrong figures regarding the Jewish population in Bradford, massaging them upwards considerably, those figures would be removed immeadiately, and so they should be, so why haven, the wrong figures regarding the South Asian population of Bradford been removed. Very strange and a complete disgrace. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been disruptive, i'm simply highlighting the Jewish contribution. How come nobody has removed to wrong figures at the bottom of the demographic section in regards to the Southern Asian population in Bradford. The figures are actually so wrong it's embarrassing, as i mentioned weeks ago on the Bradford talk page, those figures are for the whole district, including Keighley, laughable but true. This is just the sort of inept editing that gives wikipedia such a joke reputation. Get that sorted then come back to me and tell me why the Russian Jews can't be highlighted, it should make interesting reading. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you are inept, obviously 20% of 500,000 is about what the demographic page came up with. I posted it on th 8th of August on the Bradford talk page.It's still there, i could remove it, i've no idea what the correct figure is but it's nowhere near the 100,000 or so that's given, the population of Bradford is around 293,000, work it out for yourself. Maybe if editors concentrated on getting the page facts correct and a little less on what's highlighted would make more sense, to remove the highlights ( eg Russian Jews) comes across as petty, while figures that are so far out it's embarrassing remain, it's ludicrous. Like i've said on many occasions, the job that's been done on the Bradford page is superb, but there's still work to be done. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 14:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to read that, take it easy. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 23:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Friederich Wilhelm Eurich . Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.--
J3Mrs (
talk)
15:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
They may appear to constitute vandalism in your opinion, but to revert them could also appear to be exactly the same. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 11:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe the original text i wanted to highlight on the Friederich Wilhelm Eurich page was highlighted in just large but i maybe wrong and it may have been bold black, i believe i changed the original to either of the two i've mentioned above as the original highlighted text was reverted, hope i'm making sense. I believe i didn't persist with bold black but did try a few times with the large print and various other ways of highlighting a particular sentence on that and other pages i'd written, which were mostly reverted except for another piece i did on Jacob Unna and the one which had the small print. As i've said on many occasions, the editing J3Mrs seems to have been involved with on the Bradford page has been superb, i guess i may have made comments in a honest manor that may have seemed harsh but they certainly were not directed at this particular editor, it was meant in general terms on some demographic stats that were on the wrong Bradford page, and had been for months.I take your point about small text, if it hasn't been removed i'll do that now. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 00:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Jacob Moser. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.-- J3Mrs ( talk) 07:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Good to see you back, i thought it was within wikipedia guidelines that large letters could be used to highlight, having read Charlesdrakew post above, that seems what is inferred, i don't make disruptive edits, i'm trying to highlight text. While you're here, any ideas why a religion edit i did on the Bradford page was reverted, i changed the word City to town , as when the Synogogues were built,Bradford was still a town, i also added couple of capital letters that seemed like they were missing . BradfordPal1 ( talk) 11:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I've never vandalised anything in my life, i'm sure you cannot say the same. I'll add towns in regards to the Jewish religion section for the reason i gave above. Thanks. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 12:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You didn't say it wasn't all right to use them either, you didn't know. So if you didn't know you can't surely say it's wrong. I haven't as yet read anything that actually say's you can't. Obviously if it's against wikipedia editing policy i'll stop but i believe more clarification is needed. Any large words i've used are now sentence long rather than the odd word being enlarged. Thanks for your interest. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 18:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, We seem to be repeatedly removing and adding Ian Astbury from the List of people from Bradford. I have stated in my reverts that he shouldn't be there as he was only in Bradford for a few years. According to Wikipedia he moved to Bradford in late 1980, and in the article on The Cult, the band had moved to London by 1985. To my mind this isn't significant enough to say he is 'from Bradford'. If you want to add him again, can you provide some justification please? Nick Watts ( talk) 13:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I guess i take the Kaiser Chiefs as an example, they are basically a City of Bradford post (1974 boundary changes} band as i believe most of the band members hail from Menston and Keighley but the band name is included on the Leeds list. If you then look at the Southern Death Cult/ Death Cult/ The Cult which were bands formed in Bradford and most of the bands members either lived in Bradford or both lived and were born in the area, i simply took the leading member of those bands, who did live in the city for a number of years and added him to the list. The Cult has always recognized Bradford as it's home, i believe Ian Asbury has credited the city in the past as being the catalist for his music career . The Cult are a Bradford band but i don't believe that the Cult should be listed as the Leeds list has done with the Kaiser Chiefs, that's not what these lists are about, yes name band members but i wouldn't add a band name, ... Ian Astbury alone should be on the Bradfordian list. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi there , Paul Jewell lived in Menston for many years, i believe it's mentioned on the Menston page. Paul Jewell played for Bradford City for around ten years and then managed the club for around three years, i believe when he moved on to Sheffield Wednesday, to manage them, he continued to live in the Bradford district. I would imagine that him having got the Ipswich Town job, he will now have left the area, i don't know his personal details but i would imagine Jewell will have lived within the extended City of Bradford for upwards of fifteen years. In regards to Ian Astbury, i'm not sure what you want, he formed the band the Cult while living in the City, i believe that's documented on the Cult wiki page, i suppose i could dig up information in regards to the other members, i believe Asbury lived in the City for at least five years. I'll have a look to see if there is some info on exactly how long and get back to you over the weekend. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the fact that The Cult is a Bradford band, i.e. a band that was formed in Bradford, but that doesn't make it's members Bradfordians - just because they formed the band in the short period they were living in Bradford. If they were born, grew up in Bradford, or had spent a large part of their adult lives in Bradford, then fair enough, but they don't seem to have as far as I can see. The band is credited as a Bradford band on it's page and also on Bands and musicians from Yorkshire and North East England#Bradford, so they're doing their bit flying the flag for Bradford, but I don't see it needs to go any further. Nick Watts ( talk) 08:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want, as i said above, Ian Astbury was living in the City when he formed the bands that ended up being the Cult, he lived in the City for at least five years, i believe that's documented. Basically it's all already on either the Cult wiki page or the Ian Astbury wiki page. I can't really add much, but will look at it over the weekend. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
What I want is to not have Ian Astbury on the list of people from Bradford page. My argument being that living in a place for 5 years is not sufficient time to qualify - it is not a significant portion of his adult life. The fact that he formed a famous band whilst in Bradford does not make him a Bradfordian. Nick Watts ( talk) 12:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
What length of time makes someone a Bradfordian, it's a strange argument, i'd have thought someone who has spent that amount of time in one place has an attachment to that place, you don't actually know how long he stayed in Bradford, it could be longer than five years, i believe the very fact that the most importent part of his musical career started in the city, makes him worthy of a place on the list. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
What has the executioner on the list done for Bradford, not a lot i suggest... where as the band the Cult have produced some good concerts and music, the CD Ceremony being the best in my opinion. So any music fan whose's into their sort of music, i guess they've done plenty in regards to good listening for there many fans in the City and further afield. I don't actually think it matters what they've done for the city, it's whether the people on the list are worthy, i believe Ian Astbury is, having lived in the city for many years and formed a band that went on to sell millions of CD's worldwide. You can draw as many lines as you like, but in the end you'll still be wrong in this instance, no one knows for sure how long Astbury lived in the City, but even if it was five years, that has to be a strong case for inclusion. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
And what points that. I'm quite sure Ian Asbury will be going shortly, of that i've no doubt, but does he have to make a difference to Bradford to stay. I suggest you're missing my point in regards to someone being on the list. I wont bore myself and possibly you by repeating myself, but if you're not clear try reading my posts again. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a job well done. In regards to The Cult, you don't know what you're missing, i recommend for your first Cult CD Ceremony, a classic rock album that will have you nodding your head in no time. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has gone well off the rails. If we can return to the point, i.e. what criteria we use to include someone on this list. Your ascertion seems to be that Ian Astbury should be on the list because he formed a famous band whilst living in Bradford. My argument is that that is not sufficient reason for being on this list. And that, given he wasn't born or brought up in Bradford, he should have spent a significan proportion of his adult life here to qualify. What evidence we have suggests he came here in 1980 and had left by 1985. Therefore spending the vast majority of his adult life elsewhere - I would be amazed if Ian Astbury considered himself as being from Bradford. If he were quietly bringing up a family in a small farmhouse on the outskirts of Bradford then I would have no problem with putting him on the list. But we have no evidence that he currently lives in Bradford, or that he has done for the last 25 years. He is patently not someone from Bradford. If you want to add him to the List of people from Merseyside (his birthplace), then please do, because, by some oversight, he is not there. Nick Watts ( talk) 09:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll let you add him to the Merseyside list, but thanks for the offer. I added him to the Bradford list as a reference to the Bradford band the Cult, as i mentioned in one of my earlier posts. I don't think where he was born is that relevent as long as he spent considerable time living or working in the city. Up to the point he left to tour the world with his band, he had spent the majority of his adult life in Bradford. The idea that he'd have a small farmhouse on the outskirts of Bradford, probably doesn't sit well with most local band members i know when they talk about making millions in the world of music. I believe you're wrong in this instance, but will only add him again if and when i get more information regarding his stay in the City of Bradford. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of
edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on
List of people from Bradford. Users are expected to
collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Keith D ( talk) 19:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed an edit of mine had been removed a few times, i added on the outskirts of Bradford as there are two Thornton villages in the Bradford area, one has a BD13 post code, i believe the other has a BD23 code. It seems a little more clarity is needed as not everyone clicks onto the link provided by Thornton. One village is on the outskirts of Bradford while the other is on the outskirts of Skipton. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 00:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised you've got involved, but surely most people as you so aptly put it isn't accurate enough, but looking at what the Bradford page was like, hardly surprising you'd think my editing was disruptive. There is indeed a link, but those that glance at it wouldn't know which Thornton it was, as both have Bradford post codes. I don't actually understand why anyone would object to the words " on the outskirts of Bradford" as it does explain exactly where the sisters were born without the need to use the link.By the way, shouldn't this be on the Bradford discussion page, otherwise some might think there may be stalking issues.I suggest any more discussion about this be made on there. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
In regards to reverts, i don't check, as it seems a clique, it's the usual suspects in regards to my edits. There is no point if you can't see the logic of my argument. Surely using your rule of thumb, no one should have "born in Bradford" included in their info either. Craven is actually a ward in Bradford Met, so i guess that's a little more confusing as i don't believe this Thornton lies within the Craven ward boundary. Thornton in Craven is near Bradford but nearer to Skipton. I'll be answering any other questions in regards to this insert on the Bradford discussion page. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, BradfordPal1, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (bananaphone 19:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Talk:Bradford. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Charles (
talk)
20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Bradford, you may be
blocked from editing.
Charles (
talk)
19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
In case it hasn't been made clear previously: BEFORE you add or return challenged content to an article, YOU must provide a reliable source that supports the claims made. Repeated attempts to insert unsupported claims will get you blocked from editing. (as will disrupting an article talk page with inappropriate assertions of your righteous cause.) Active Banana (bananaphone 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully not,but i don't believe for a minute this is about unsupported claims. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 19:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Bradford, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Active
Banana
(bananaphone
19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have a strange idea of free speech.I don't agree that i've disrupted anything,the TWO landmarks..the Bronte Sisters birth place in Thornton and the UNESCO world heritage site IN Saltaire need to be included in the Bradford landmark section,i believe whoever is responsible for the Bradford page to be the real vandal or vandals. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 20:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
As i said previously,i don't believe for a minute this has anything to do with verification or unsupported claims for that matter,anyone who read my sons edit insert would understand that.Any one who would allow a person of no worth born in Dewsbury who murdered his victims and disposed of their body parts in Saltaire to be mentioned on the Bradford page yet not to allow Sir Titus Salt onto the Bradford page..he was a great humanitarian and Bradford Mayor who i believe was born in Morley who built his village in Saltaire which is a UNESCO world heritage site,the mind boggles at that piece of editing,the Bradford page is a misrepresentation and damages the image of the City. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 21:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Verify what lol ....i don't believe verification is the problem ,try reading my sons insert...i'm sure you'll get the gist of it.... The Brontë sisters were born in Thornton which was incorporated into the City of Bradford in 1899 , but wrote most of their novels while living at the Haworth Parsonage (which is now a museum owned and maintained by the Brontë Society), when their father was the parson at the adjacent Church of St. Michael and All Angels. The house in which the Brontë sisters were born in is situated on Market Street Thornton,Bradford (Charlotte-1816,Emily Jane-1818 and Anne-1820) is a grade11 listed building,one of 5,800 in Bradford and can be visited on the way to Haworth parsonage around 5 miles away. To the North of the City lies the UNESCO World Heritage site at Saltaire,the village was built in 1853 for his mill workers by the Bradford mill owner Sir Titus Salt.Sir Titus Salt was the largest employer in Bradford at the time and also became Lord Mayor of the Town.There is a superb statue of Sir Titus situated in the newly refurbished Roberts Park in Saltaire. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Listening no,reading yes,but only if it makes sense do you act on that...unfortunately as i'm sure you know lol this has nothing to do with verification ,you only have to read the original objections to my sons edit insert to realise that,i believe that some are using the Bradford page to create a negative image of the City,the fact that there is no mention of the Bronte birth place which lies within the old 1899 Bradford City boundary or indeed Sir Titus Salt and his magnificent UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE village but there are plenty of nrgatives about the City which seem to be embraced with open arms leads me to the conclusion that the page is being used to reinforce negative stereo types in regards to the City of Bradford.The page is an utter disgrace. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 09:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am reporting you to the 3RR noticeboard for continued edit warring.-- Charles ( talk) 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
That really is sad....Whoever is responsible for the Bradford wikipedia page is actually damaging the Cities image and is probably costing the city of Bradford considerable amounts of money.The page as it stands is simply a misrepresentation and an utter disgrace. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 20:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I also know the feeling of wasting my time lol i haven't got a clue about the evading bit of your post ,my son posted the original edit insert then came back with the same tag,that's hardly evading is it,he told me i'd be wasting my time and so far he's been proved correct....on your point about editing....I find it amazing that people would edit putting in content that is basically rubbish,what's the thinking behind that,having looked on the Bradford page,the editing there is shocking,the page is basically a misrepresentation of the City.The idea that the cannibal killer get's a mention but the great humanitarian Sir Titus Salt doesn't is a disgrace.The Bronte sisters birth place has been within the City boundaries since Thornton was incorporated into the City in 1899 yet doesn't get mentioned in the Bradford Landmark section,stranger than fiction some would say. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 21:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello BradfordPal1,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the
Edit warring policy at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the
noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~
NekoBot (
MeowTalk)
20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive?
Report it!)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Mjroots ( talk) 20:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
As you are probably aware, I am the admin who blocked your son for edit warring and breaching the Sockpuppet policy. It is permissible to have more than one account, but it was they way that the accounts were being used that led to the block. Although you are blocked, you are able to edit this talk page. As I said at the talk page of the Bradford article, your account is being used as a meatpuppet, which is also against policy. I could have blocked you indefinitely for the edit warring, and no admin would have raised an eyebrow over the block. Once the block expires, you are free to edit Wikipedia, but I would caution against re-adding that material to the Bradford article, or the next block will be indefinite. It is long-standing consensus that the info should not be in the Bradford article because at the time that the Brontë's and Salt were alive, those locations were not part of Bradford, but lay outside its boundaries. Mjroots ( talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info,my son is a very talanted guitarist who obviously spends alot of time either playing or practising,the impression i'm getting is that he's done what he can in the limited spare time he has and he's not prepared to... as he see's it, waste any more time in regards to the wikipedia page.I'll certainly ask him though,and thanks for the information in regards to his position. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If the consensus has come up with the Bradford page as it is today,how on earth can it be changed for the better,it's a disgracful misrepresentation of the City of Bradford and is actually damaging the City's image.The negative stereo typing only adds to the downbeat vibe given when reading the page.I'm sure you're a good man/woman,sorry i don't know your gender but please read it then try reading the Leeds page or Leicester page or any other of the large City pages.I'm proud of my roots as are all my family,i'm simply asking someone to take a look ,someone who can do something to put Bradford's page on a par with all the other large City pages.Thanks for taking the time to answer my last post. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi James,Thanks for the suggestions,yes,maybe the bull in the china shop wasn't the best way forward. The point i've made on a few occasions is that the Bradford page doesn't match any of the other large wikipedia City pages,for me the consensus have come up with a Bradford page that has a negative view of the City.I've looked at many big City pages and none have sections pointing out mass murdereers or riots.I find those sections a disgrace,after all there are far more violent City's in the UK than Bradford yet Bradford seems to be getting special negative wikipedia editing.I'm not asking for the Bradford page to get any special treatment,i'm asking for the page to get the same tratment as the rest of the large City pages featured in wikipedia.The Leeds,Glasgow and Belfast wikipedia pages are superb and so should be the Bradford wikipedia page. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
Bradford. When removing content, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Fæ (
talk)
21:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Just had a quick look see at the Leeds link,it isn't actually like for like as it's not under a crime heading as on the Bradford wikipedia page.I certainly wouldn't have any objections if the Bradford page followed that example. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Bradford with
this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been
reverted. Please make use of the
sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Monty
845
22:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Point taken,maybe move the Bradford crime section as with the Leeds page would be a good idea,i've made a couple of comments on the Bradford talk page,crime section,i'll leave it at that and see what the consensus thinks. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edit to the page
Bradford with
this edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been
reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be
verifiable in a
reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please
cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's
talk page. Please use the
sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.
WikiPuppies! (
bark)
00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.-- J3Mrs ( talk) 20:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Bradford. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.-- Charles ( talk) 22:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Elockid (
Talk)
12:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Bradford, you may be
blocked from editing. Adding content and inline links against consensus yet again.
Harkey (
talk)
19:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
How is adding information regarding Bradford's Jewish connection and Titus Salt's attempt to reduce Bradford's smoke pollution in 1849 regarded as disruptive editing.What consensus has actually said anything against those edits.I certainly have only had one person disagreeing with my recent edits,that doesn't add up to any sort of consensus.To describe my edits as vandalism seems odd.I know wikipedia does get lots of bad edits from people who are just messing about but my edits are hopefully enlightening wikipedia readers in regards to information on Bradford's history. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi...i actually thought it was the same person removing my inserts,to find out that there are more, that is even more perplexing.What on earth anyone has against these inserts is beyond me.I'd have thought the Jewish information was key to understanding Bradford's success in becoming the City it was and is today.The Bronte insert into the notable Bradfordians is simply adding what has been there for the previous few months,i also had a peek on the page a couple of years ago and the Bronte sisters info was also there on the notable Bradfordian list.The Titus Salt insert regarding the Rodda Smoke Burner is key to understanding why he moved to Saltaire. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 11:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks,i could maybe understand one edit being objected to,but all of my inserts reverted by all four editors,that seems odd in the extreme,i feel that i've done everything in regards to linking my edits,i've added bits to the talk Bradford section.I can't except the Jewish immigrants being ignored on the Bradford page when in the 19th and 20th century they did so much for the Town and City of Bradford.The Rodda Smoke Burner in regards to Titus Salt also seems like a no brainer. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 13:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi BradfordPal1. I've just edited an article you previously edited, and taken the liberty of coming here and reading your talkpage; d'you mind if i offer a suggestion? As someone who was brought up in two different cities (two countries), and who has lived in five or six more, and assorted towns, too, i have no great allegiance to any city, and i rather envy you yours. Perhaps, nevertheless, it might behove you to take a step back from Bradford itself, and make some further edits, elsewhere. This will have a dual effect, i think, in that it will both help establish your reputation as a good editor, a member of the community, and it will give you experience in how Wikipedia works, because it is by no means intuitive nor obvious. In a way, i think you've maybe begun this process with your edit to Humbert Wolfe.
You'll notice, if you look, that i have changed it slightly, and i think my change might help you further your cause. First, the information was put in the middle of a sentence about Wolfe's Jewish background; in fact, it separated the statement of that background and the explanation of it. Second, when you put it in, you used a comma with no space after it; i notice here, on your page, that you tend to type that way, and that's fine, for talk pages, but not for the articles themselves; it isn't correct usage, so i urge you to proofread any edits you make before you save them. The "Preview" button, next to "Save page", is excellent for that. Third, you'll see that i added a template asking for a citation for the fact you added. In other words, how do you know it? can you prove it? where can i go to discover its truth? This is what we call verification, and is required. May i suggest you find a reference for this fact, and add it to Wolfe's article, as your next step? I'm sorry if i'm being pushy, or unwelcome; i've seen that you don't feel welcomed, though, and i assure you that, really, you are. If i can help in any way, just ask, or respond here, as your talk page is now on my watchlist. Cheers, Lindsay Hello 06:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lindsay,thanks for the input in regards to Humbert Wolfe, it does read better. I don't know about not being welcomed, i guess i was sad that the Bradford page had been neglected and was basically a poor reflection on the City. I'm actually in the process of adding pages on the influence the German Jewish migrants had on the Town/City of Bradford, Richard Eurich being the next page i'll be producing. Once i've added all that content on various Bradfordians, i'll maybe have a look at other pages in regards to editing. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 13:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
"How many times do we have to tell you that you cannot have an inline external link. Use references or external links!" You have had edits undone for consistently doing this. I have removed an edit from history and moved it to a more suitable place -religion, and correctly referenced it. I learned to do this by copying fron citations in the text. Next time I will just revert it. You've been editing for long enough to start learning how to do things properly now.-- J3Mrs ( talk) 12:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of writing a biography , thought i'd put a bit of info regarding the Russian Jews which i'd added a while back..back on, i don't agree by the way that it should just be in the religion section. I've yet to master the references bit, for me you can revert away as i keep all the info and i can add it all once i've got to grips with everything in regards to Wikipedia editing. I believe your input has improved the page immeasurably, hopefully mine has also been of some use.Take it easy BradfordPal1 ( talk) 13:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought the biggest problem with it was that it misrepresented the City, i couldn't believe my eyes when i first read the page a couple of years back. A total disgrace. Read my post above, i'm far from going my own sweet way. Thanks for the info regarding references. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 14:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed Behrens yet again, he is mentioned in history. Please do not keep adding to this list people mentioned in the text. Thank you.-- J3Mrs ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yet again,i'd only noticed him being removed once. How on earth am i supposed to know who's removing what exactly. Obviously there is alot of editing going on, it's not a consensus of one. As far as i'm aware Behrens had been on the Bradford page list since i put him there a week or so ago, at least until today,i saw he had disappeared so simply added him again, no big deal, you've explained your thinking, i'll leave it at that,although on this occasion i've no idea on the thought process behind this removal, as it makes no sense, a notable Bradfordian is surely a notable BRADFORDIAN WHETHER HE'S BEEN MENTIONED in the ABOVE text OR OTHER WISE..I still believe the job you and others have done on editing and improving the Bradford page is excellent. Hopefully you wont take my differences on three or four edits to heart.
The absurdity of a Bradford page with no mention of the Jewish connection to the town and City is what was on offer only a few weeks ago along with other glaring ommisions.That had to be addressed or else the whole page would be a joke, that's where local knowledge comes in. I'm not here to upset anyone but i want this page to be a correct representation of the town and City through the ages and i believe we're getting there. Take it easy... BradfordPal1 ( talk) 00:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Stop adding strange formatting to articles such as Friederich Wilhelm Eurich.-- J3Mrs ( talk) 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't added any strange formatting as you strangly put it. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added
links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see
Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. --
J3Mrs (
talk)
08:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You do know what they say about sarcasm, if you don't actually know what i'm trying to do, i wont bother explaining the obvious. Keep up the good work in regards to the Bradford page. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 13:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Bradford. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
What's disruptive about highlighting the very important Jewish connection to Bradford in the 19th and early 20th century. It seems there is no thought of anyone being disruptive if misleading stuff is added about Pakistan or Muslims in regards to the Bradford page ( eg the bottom sentence in the demographics section is obviously the figure for the whole district not the settlement) i pointed this out on the Bradford talk page weeks ago but lo and behold it never even got an answer and certainly didn't get removed, very odd. Yet i highlight the Jewish contribution and i'm threatened with being blocked. Very sad, but i'm not surprised. I'm quite sure that if for what ever reason someone added wrong figures regarding the Jewish population in Bradford, massaging them upwards considerably, those figures would be removed immeadiately, and so they should be, so why haven, the wrong figures regarding the South Asian population of Bradford been removed. Very strange and a complete disgrace. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been disruptive, i'm simply highlighting the Jewish contribution. How come nobody has removed to wrong figures at the bottom of the demographic section in regards to the Southern Asian population in Bradford. The figures are actually so wrong it's embarrassing, as i mentioned weeks ago on the Bradford talk page, those figures are for the whole district, including Keighley, laughable but true. This is just the sort of inept editing that gives wikipedia such a joke reputation. Get that sorted then come back to me and tell me why the Russian Jews can't be highlighted, it should make interesting reading. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you are inept, obviously 20% of 500,000 is about what the demographic page came up with. I posted it on th 8th of August on the Bradford talk page.It's still there, i could remove it, i've no idea what the correct figure is but it's nowhere near the 100,000 or so that's given, the population of Bradford is around 293,000, work it out for yourself. Maybe if editors concentrated on getting the page facts correct and a little less on what's highlighted would make more sense, to remove the highlights ( eg Russian Jews) comes across as petty, while figures that are so far out it's embarrassing remain, it's ludicrous. Like i've said on many occasions, the job that's been done on the Bradford page is superb, but there's still work to be done. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 14:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to read that, take it easy. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 23:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Friederich Wilhelm Eurich . Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.--
J3Mrs (
talk)
15:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
They may appear to constitute vandalism in your opinion, but to revert them could also appear to be exactly the same. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 11:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe the original text i wanted to highlight on the Friederich Wilhelm Eurich page was highlighted in just large but i maybe wrong and it may have been bold black, i believe i changed the original to either of the two i've mentioned above as the original highlighted text was reverted, hope i'm making sense. I believe i didn't persist with bold black but did try a few times with the large print and various other ways of highlighting a particular sentence on that and other pages i'd written, which were mostly reverted except for another piece i did on Jacob Unna and the one which had the small print. As i've said on many occasions, the editing J3Mrs seems to have been involved with on the Bradford page has been superb, i guess i may have made comments in a honest manor that may have seemed harsh but they certainly were not directed at this particular editor, it was meant in general terms on some demographic stats that were on the wrong Bradford page, and had been for months.I take your point about small text, if it hasn't been removed i'll do that now. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 00:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Jacob Moser. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been
reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.-- J3Mrs ( talk) 07:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Good to see you back, i thought it was within wikipedia guidelines that large letters could be used to highlight, having read Charlesdrakew post above, that seems what is inferred, i don't make disruptive edits, i'm trying to highlight text. While you're here, any ideas why a religion edit i did on the Bradford page was reverted, i changed the word City to town , as when the Synogogues were built,Bradford was still a town, i also added couple of capital letters that seemed like they were missing . BradfordPal1 ( talk) 11:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I've never vandalised anything in my life, i'm sure you cannot say the same. I'll add towns in regards to the Jewish religion section for the reason i gave above. Thanks. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 12:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You didn't say it wasn't all right to use them either, you didn't know. So if you didn't know you can't surely say it's wrong. I haven't as yet read anything that actually say's you can't. Obviously if it's against wikipedia editing policy i'll stop but i believe more clarification is needed. Any large words i've used are now sentence long rather than the odd word being enlarged. Thanks for your interest. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 18:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, We seem to be repeatedly removing and adding Ian Astbury from the List of people from Bradford. I have stated in my reverts that he shouldn't be there as he was only in Bradford for a few years. According to Wikipedia he moved to Bradford in late 1980, and in the article on The Cult, the band had moved to London by 1985. To my mind this isn't significant enough to say he is 'from Bradford'. If you want to add him again, can you provide some justification please? Nick Watts ( talk) 13:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I guess i take the Kaiser Chiefs as an example, they are basically a City of Bradford post (1974 boundary changes} band as i believe most of the band members hail from Menston and Keighley but the band name is included on the Leeds list. If you then look at the Southern Death Cult/ Death Cult/ The Cult which were bands formed in Bradford and most of the bands members either lived in Bradford or both lived and were born in the area, i simply took the leading member of those bands, who did live in the city for a number of years and added him to the list. The Cult has always recognized Bradford as it's home, i believe Ian Asbury has credited the city in the past as being the catalist for his music career . The Cult are a Bradford band but i don't believe that the Cult should be listed as the Leeds list has done with the Kaiser Chiefs, that's not what these lists are about, yes name band members but i wouldn't add a band name, ... Ian Astbury alone should be on the Bradfordian list. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi there , Paul Jewell lived in Menston for many years, i believe it's mentioned on the Menston page. Paul Jewell played for Bradford City for around ten years and then managed the club for around three years, i believe when he moved on to Sheffield Wednesday, to manage them, he continued to live in the Bradford district. I would imagine that him having got the Ipswich Town job, he will now have left the area, i don't know his personal details but i would imagine Jewell will have lived within the extended City of Bradford for upwards of fifteen years. In regards to Ian Astbury, i'm not sure what you want, he formed the band the Cult while living in the City, i believe that's documented on the Cult wiki page, i suppose i could dig up information in regards to the other members, i believe Asbury lived in the City for at least five years. I'll have a look to see if there is some info on exactly how long and get back to you over the weekend. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the fact that The Cult is a Bradford band, i.e. a band that was formed in Bradford, but that doesn't make it's members Bradfordians - just because they formed the band in the short period they were living in Bradford. If they were born, grew up in Bradford, or had spent a large part of their adult lives in Bradford, then fair enough, but they don't seem to have as far as I can see. The band is credited as a Bradford band on it's page and also on Bands and musicians from Yorkshire and North East England#Bradford, so they're doing their bit flying the flag for Bradford, but I don't see it needs to go any further. Nick Watts ( talk) 08:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want, as i said above, Ian Astbury was living in the City when he formed the bands that ended up being the Cult, he lived in the City for at least five years, i believe that's documented. Basically it's all already on either the Cult wiki page or the Ian Astbury wiki page. I can't really add much, but will look at it over the weekend. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
What I want is to not have Ian Astbury on the list of people from Bradford page. My argument being that living in a place for 5 years is not sufficient time to qualify - it is not a significant portion of his adult life. The fact that he formed a famous band whilst in Bradford does not make him a Bradfordian. Nick Watts ( talk) 12:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
What length of time makes someone a Bradfordian, it's a strange argument, i'd have thought someone who has spent that amount of time in one place has an attachment to that place, you don't actually know how long he stayed in Bradford, it could be longer than five years, i believe the very fact that the most importent part of his musical career started in the city, makes him worthy of a place on the list. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
What has the executioner on the list done for Bradford, not a lot i suggest... where as the band the Cult have produced some good concerts and music, the CD Ceremony being the best in my opinion. So any music fan whose's into their sort of music, i guess they've done plenty in regards to good listening for there many fans in the City and further afield. I don't actually think it matters what they've done for the city, it's whether the people on the list are worthy, i believe Ian Astbury is, having lived in the city for many years and formed a band that went on to sell millions of CD's worldwide. You can draw as many lines as you like, but in the end you'll still be wrong in this instance, no one knows for sure how long Astbury lived in the City, but even if it was five years, that has to be a strong case for inclusion. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
And what points that. I'm quite sure Ian Asbury will be going shortly, of that i've no doubt, but does he have to make a difference to Bradford to stay. I suggest you're missing my point in regards to someone being on the list. I wont bore myself and possibly you by repeating myself, but if you're not clear try reading my posts again. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a job well done. In regards to The Cult, you don't know what you're missing, i recommend for your first Cult CD Ceremony, a classic rock album that will have you nodding your head in no time. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has gone well off the rails. If we can return to the point, i.e. what criteria we use to include someone on this list. Your ascertion seems to be that Ian Astbury should be on the list because he formed a famous band whilst living in Bradford. My argument is that that is not sufficient reason for being on this list. And that, given he wasn't born or brought up in Bradford, he should have spent a significan proportion of his adult life here to qualify. What evidence we have suggests he came here in 1980 and had left by 1985. Therefore spending the vast majority of his adult life elsewhere - I would be amazed if Ian Astbury considered himself as being from Bradford. If he were quietly bringing up a family in a small farmhouse on the outskirts of Bradford then I would have no problem with putting him on the list. But we have no evidence that he currently lives in Bradford, or that he has done for the last 25 years. He is patently not someone from Bradford. If you want to add him to the List of people from Merseyside (his birthplace), then please do, because, by some oversight, he is not there. Nick Watts ( talk) 09:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll let you add him to the Merseyside list, but thanks for the offer. I added him to the Bradford list as a reference to the Bradford band the Cult, as i mentioned in one of my earlier posts. I don't think where he was born is that relevent as long as he spent considerable time living or working in the city. Up to the point he left to tour the world with his band, he had spent the majority of his adult life in Bradford. The idea that he'd have a small farmhouse on the outskirts of Bradford, probably doesn't sit well with most local band members i know when they talk about making millions in the world of music. I believe you're wrong in this instance, but will only add him again if and when i get more information regarding his stay in the City of Bradford. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 22:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of
edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on
List of people from Bradford. Users are expected to
collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Keith D ( talk) 19:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed an edit of mine had been removed a few times, i added on the outskirts of Bradford as there are two Thornton villages in the Bradford area, one has a BD13 post code, i believe the other has a BD23 code. It seems a little more clarity is needed as not everyone clicks onto the link provided by Thornton. One village is on the outskirts of Bradford while the other is on the outskirts of Skipton. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 00:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised you've got involved, but surely most people as you so aptly put it isn't accurate enough, but looking at what the Bradford page was like, hardly surprising you'd think my editing was disruptive. There is indeed a link, but those that glance at it wouldn't know which Thornton it was, as both have Bradford post codes. I don't actually understand why anyone would object to the words " on the outskirts of Bradford" as it does explain exactly where the sisters were born without the need to use the link.By the way, shouldn't this be on the Bradford discussion page, otherwise some might think there may be stalking issues.I suggest any more discussion about this be made on there. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
In regards to reverts, i don't check, as it seems a clique, it's the usual suspects in regards to my edits. There is no point if you can't see the logic of my argument. Surely using your rule of thumb, no one should have "born in Bradford" included in their info either. Craven is actually a ward in Bradford Met, so i guess that's a little more confusing as i don't believe this Thornton lies within the Craven ward boundary. Thornton in Craven is near Bradford but nearer to Skipton. I'll be answering any other questions in regards to this insert on the Bradford discussion page. BradfordPal1 ( talk) 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)