Hello, Jeremy Bolwell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
A.A.J.S.
13:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your edits to Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester. However, we only capitalise the first word in a section heading, and king, baron etc. are only capitalised if they are part of a formal title (eg. 'the King of France', but 'the French king'. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Capitalization and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Titles for more info and examples. Modest Genius talk 21:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, When you're adding paths to Long-distance footpaths in the UK could you please add the distance in km as well as miles, to be consistent with all the other entries on the page, and to comply with the conversions section of WP:MOS. The whole article was only in km until I put a lot of work into it to add the miles, around 31 October - I'm not a metric fanatic, but the WP convention is to give both units so please convert as you add! Thanks, PamD ( talk) 19:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Could I bring these sites to your attention: http://www.lhcrt.org.uk/ http://www.m6toll.co.uk/about/environment.asp Also, Mr Michael Fabricant MP (UK) is involved with the LHCRT. Thanks, Tom Blacker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.238.40 ( talk) 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
HI thanks for your contrbiutions to the missing villages -I live in the vale of glamorgan! Could you do a favour though and start adding {{Monmouthshire-geo-stub}} at the bottom of articles -see Llansoy. This way we know which articles need developing thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that in all your extremely valuable and useful contributions on Monmouthshire and Wales there is a distinct lack of inline references, which is Wikipedia's preferred style of ensuring that the information the articles contain is verifiable. Rather than attaching bold template messages to your articles, I thought I'd raise it with you here first. The guidance is at WP:REF. I'm far from faultless at this myself but hope I'm getting better - a couple of examples of referenced articles I've done recently are Partrishow and Sudbrook, Monmouthshire. Happy to help at any time. Regards, Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your helpful additional links on the Timeline of Jane Austen. I just wanted to let you know that it is always a good idea to check the links after you make them. Several of the links you created were to disambiguation pages, meaning they were to pages that list all of the possible articles with that title. Usually we try to link directly to the correct page. Thanks again! Awadewit | talk 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, I see you've linked to several Geograph photos from the Rhymney Valley Ridgeway Walk article, but in fact you can upload any Geograph photo onto Wiki Commons and then use it in the article - that's how I did the ones in Leeds Country Way. There's a template {{geograph}} to use in specifying the permissions. PamD ( talk) 09:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I just reverted your edits to River Usk as you added far too many links, which looked ugly and broke up the flow of the text. I have migrated one of the image across to commons and it really is very easy. In the example image I migrated, its geograph number was 410993 and its owner was mfjordan. To upload the image I saved it to local disk, went to the Wikimedia Commons upload form, pointed to the file on local disk then gave it a sensible name. Then I simply put the following text into the Commons image upload form. {{subst:geograph | 410993 | mfjordan}} All other text on the form can be deleted. It is that easy and looks so much better than ugly inline links. -- Cheesy Mike ( talk) 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) :b.t.w. if you need any help, just ask. -- Cheesy Mike ( talk) 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You recently wiki-linked a number of years in the Kennet and Avon Canal and Caen Hill Locks articles. While there is nothing 'wrong' with that, you will find that many editors follow the guidance of WP:DATE, and do not link years, centuries, etc. There is further explanation at Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates. Cheers. EdJogg ( talk) 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Horton Point (horse), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Horton Point (horse).
Dana boomer (
talk)
21:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, When you're adding to Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom could you please format the distances in the established way? The non-breaking space (so that in "73 kilometres" you never get the 73 on one line and the "kilometres" on the next) is available by a mouseclick in the toolbox below the editing window. It is convention that we spell out "kilometres" and abbreviate "mi" (yes, I hate that abbreviation, but there it is). A lot of time has been spent tidying up that page for consistency, so please help by adding anything new in constistent style. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy - good job on copyediting and wikilinking various Wales articles (your name keeps cropping up in my watchlist, so I can see you've been busy!). My only comment is to nudge you in the direction of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Limit links to other time period related articles which says "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." (emphasis in original) Wikilinking lots of individual years probably doesn't add to the utility of the article and may even distract from the other, useful, wikilinks you've been adding. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't overlink, in general it's only necessary to link something on the first occasion it is mentioned, and more common terms shouldn't be linked at all. David Underdown ( talk) 12:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Jeremy - just to suggest that adding Category:Visitor attractions in Wales to places like Harlech Castle is unnecessary, since Category:World Heritage Sites in Wales is a sub-category of the "Visitor attractions" category and so World Heritage Sites are effectively included there already. See no 3 of these guidelines. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Your Welsh religion category changes are overcategorization as well; please don't do this. Bencherlite Talk 10:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy! With regard to your multiple edits today on the Huddersfield article - (47 edits in 95 minutes). I think you were a little exuberant on your quest for wikilinking :0). Most of them were not required as its not necessary to link every reference to common words (Note the post by David Underdown above). Additionally please ensure your linking to the correct item; For example Gamma does not have quite the same meaning as Gamma ray when referring to Gamma irradiation scanning!' Leaving wiki-links open to several meanings is also a bad idea, as per your link to Liberal, you need to disambiguate the link to a specific meaning. Accordingly I have just spent two hours and 53 edits reverting those that needed to be. I have disambiguated those that I could, reworded some others to give the same meaning as intended by the original editors, a couple, that do not or may never have articles to link to I have Hyperlinked to their respective websites, where appropriate, such as the Hospital trust. An editing tip for checking the wikilinks is to use the 'Preview' button and then hover your mouse cursor over the link shown. That will then either show the only link available or a list of articles that you can select from, or check for further specific links, before pressing the 'Save page' button ;0) Additionally I have reverted your mass deletions of the people who have received Civic Honours in the town. Your personal selection of who you feel are the most notable do not really matter, I personally felt some you had deleted were quite notable. Its best to leave the listing neutral. Please note though that the list is as they say 'fixed in concrete'. Since Huddersfield became a part of Kirklees and ceased to have its own Town Council and Mayor no further additions can ever be made to it. Any new potential honours recipients from the town will need to be put to the Kirklees Council. Richard Harvey ( talk) 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from vandalising articles. Removal of factual information, as you have repeadtedly done on the Huddersfield article is regarded as vandalism, Additionally you have been requested by numerous editors to cease unrequired wikilinking of common words and dates and not disambiguating links correctly. You have failed to reply to these requests or refrain from the type of editing that is causing problems. Continued editing of this type will be taken in bad faith as vandalism and may result in your editing being blocked. Richard Harvey ( talk) 14:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a helpful note - try to be constructive with your edits -- follow the guidelines on not overlinking single common words or stand alone dates, and don't delete useful information without a comment. Hope this helps, -- mervyn ( talk)
Hi Jeremy I've noticed that you have an interest in editing pub articles. I've also edited some over the past few years. I have been looking vlosley at the pub articles over the past couple of days and feel that there is room for improvement - especially in terms of organisation, referencing, and notability. The pub articles attract people who want to write about a pub they like regardless of Wikipedia's guidelines, and there has been a tendency for some non-notable pubs to be added either as stand-alone articles or as part of a list. It would be helpful to think about a standard approach to structuring pub articles, and some minimal notability guidelines. And to think about the overall organisation of the pub articles in general. Would you be interested in getting involved? Regards SilkTork * YES! 15:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that a couple of times you've added links to articles without piping them, which would ensure that the name of the article itself doesn't appear in the displayed text where it would disrupt the flow and grammar. Easy enough to do - instead of simply putting in Chepstow Museum, say, you add in | followed by the words you want to appear in the text, before the final ]], such as I'm doing here. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy, I've just created a page for Penrhys (and boy will it get vandalised over the coming years), but it seems it is part of the Cistercian Way, a page which you created. Could you see if you could find some references to this so we can update both our pages if it's true. Keep up the good fight. FruitMonkey ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You made this edit deleting a section of Cwmystwyth and did not state the reason. Please explain? Thanks. ∞☼ Geaugagrrl (T)/ (C) 03:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, just a quick FYI to let you know that wikipedia guidelines generally suggest that one does not add both a main category and a subcategory within the main category in the same article. I tossed some of your categorization because it was overkill. This is not to say that the horse categories aren't a mess and need serious reorganization, but until that happens, we are trying to keep "Equestrianism" down to more of a list of other subcategories than a list of articles itself...not that we're there, but feel free to swing by Wikiproject Equine and lend a hand! Montanabw (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy. I'm a bit puzzled by your contribution to the Newbridge page in which you say : "X-Factor star Leanne Wolves, who won the first X-Factor Series in the band Triple X with Marcella and Skip. Their only known hit to date is 'Gimme Some of That!' B-side to 'You Know You've Got it!'. She has just been signed to accompany C'est La Vie la Sest, on their latest world tour." Is this some sort of wind-up? The first winner of X-Factor was Steve Brookstein. Marcella and Skip are the subject of a 'bad audition' video on YouTube, and Googling 'Leanne Wolves' produces no results, and neither does C'est La Vie la Sest. Can you enlighten me, please? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 18:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Jeremy, but I think that 'in the team of Great Britain at the 1952 Summer Olympics in the boxing squad' is a really ugly grammatical change that you've made. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, I've just been having another look at the edits you made to Dai Dower last month. You seem to have 'Wikified' the names of six boxers who don't have pages on Wikipedia. As this adds nothing at all to the article, other than making it look messy, I'm a bit puzzled why you've done that. Can you explain your thinking behind such edits? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 17:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy, the standard way of describing a place on Wikepdia is usually: <placename>, <county>, <country>
You seem to be breaking this convention by changing Wales to North Wales. The term North Wales does not refer to a country, but merely a geography region. If you read the North Wales and South Wales articles you will see that they are also poorly defined region. For example the city of Newport can be defined as being in South Wales but is not covered by South Wales Police. Parts of Gwynedd are not in the "North Wales" regional Assembly constituency but are part of "Mid and West Wales". Is Carmarthen is South Wales or West Wales?
Comparing articles on Welsh places to those elsewhere is also a good guide:
I accept that in many of the articles I have written, or edited, I do use the terms "north Wales"; "north-east Wales"; etc. but merely as geographic pointers within Wales. Using the terms North Wales or South Wales to identify places could imply two separate countries as in North Korea and South Korea.
So I can see no serious precedence for your moves, which seem totally illogical.
Perhaps this issue should go out as an RFQ? -- Maelor 13:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
(<-) Hello guys. This issue is adequately covered in our policy entitled Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). In short, for better or worse, we use the convention "<placename>, <principal area>". -- Jza84 | Talk 14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy take care. You just deleted the Ruthin article???? -- Maelor 14:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't overlink, especially with common terms. Is it really necessary to Wikilink words like hill, beach, sand, park etc? Overlinking spoils the text. As does linking every date unnecessarily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.88.202 ( talk) 11:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Jeremy Bolwell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your repeated overlinking. Thank you. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 15:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy - no-one involved in your areas of interest wants to lose you from this, as you make a great number of very useful contributions to articles. You are certainly not a vandal, quite the opposite, you have helped build a great number of articles. However, I strongly suggest that you look carefully at the advice you are getting here. You do make valid points about the benefits of linking as an educational tool, and if you disagree with the current guidance you've every reason to seek to change it as others have mentioned. But I suspect that if you were to continue with your approach so far, despite the advice you've had, the results would be counter-productive and I hope you don't go down that route. Regards, Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry it's come to this, but you cannot deny that you were given a fair chance. I'm also sorry you feel I'm bullying you, or trying to be protective about "my" articles - this is in no way the case. I'd be happy to see you make constructive improvements to any articles once your block has expired. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reduced the length of your block, as I'm convinced you're editing in good faith and have made some good contributions. I also apologise for the reference to vandalism, which I appreciate was not the case. However, please bear in mind everything that has been stated above and on WP:AN, particularly by Exploding Boy, and take time to consider links carefully in future. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 05:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy. How about changing the wording of the links from:
*[http://www.geograph.org.uk/search.php?i=3538564 www.geograph.co.uk : photos of Pontfadog and surrounding area]
to
*[http://www.geograph.org.uk/search.php?i=3538564 Photos of Pontfadog and surrounding area on Geograph]
I think it look tidier. What do you think? Maelor 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your very useful edits to my little entry on village pounds. When I tried to link to a pound entry a while back I was gobsmacked to find every sort of pound represented except a village pound. The Geograph pound photos are wonderful. I didn't realise so many of these old structures still existed. 21stCenturyGreenstuff ( talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy. Hope you don't mind me taking an interest, but I noticed that you've started a new article on this character. I don't know if you've thought about it, but have you considered submitting it as a "
Did You Know" new article for the WP
main page? If so, I've got a bit of experience there and I'd be happy to suggest a few formating changes which the article would need to pass muster - such as the title being changed to
Trevor Williams (politician) - without the "Sir" and with the more usual (English) spelling, also inline references etc.. I've also got a book "Civil War and Restoration in Monmouthshire" by Jeremy Knight which mentions him a good deal. If you'd like me to help let me know, and I can give some time to it later this week (but not in the next day or two). Otherwise, just ignore me and carry on the good work (not too many links though!)
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I've made some editorial changes, as well as the move request (see above). Hope that doesn't tread on anyone's toes. I'll suggest it for " Did You Know" as well, as a multi-editor collaboration. Could do with succession boxes and an infobox maybe - I can't track down a picture of him though. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
If you look at a photo on geograph then it has a link concerning using this picture on wikipedia. You can load them up and display them in Gallerys. I say this as your use in the Crickhowell article shows enthusiasm (great!) but will I think end up in someone deleting the links or the article will fail in other places as wikipedia does not like external links in its articles. I'd be happy to help Victuallers ( talk) 12:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy. I see from previous edits that you have edited Croft Castle. I have found a bit more information about it which I've posted here. I thought you might be interested. ∞☼ Geaugagrrl (T)/ (C) 05:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Can I ask why you removed Somerset Rural Life Museum from the list at Tithe barn as the barn obviously performed the functions of a Tithe Barn for the Abbey?— Rod talk 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! A WikiProject Worcestershire has now been created to better manage all articles that relate in any way to the county even if they overlap with other categories or projects. Please visit the project pages and if you see listed any articles you have written or contributed to, or if you would like to see more active development of them, don't hesitate to join the project. |
We look forward to your contribs; however, before editing any of these articles please follow the recommendations and Wiki guidelines.-- Kudpung ( talk) 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Elmley Castle |
. -- Kudpung ( talk) 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If references are not added soon it may be deleted. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Holt, Worcestershire
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its local parent project as needing either a little attention to style, updating, or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see RGS Worcester and The Alice Ottley School. -- Kudpung ( talk) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jeremy. Can I ask that you have another look at the edits you recently made to Isle of Anglesey and try to reduce some of the links. I would think, as it stands, that this is a clear case of overlinking. Do we, for example, really need a link from "Roman coins". Surely, having already chosen to link "Romans", the average reader will be able to work out what "Roman coins" are. I know it's not always easy to get linking in the right proportions, but when a section has more blue ink than black it is usually a fair indication of over-zealous linking. Skinsmoke ( talk) 14:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! An article you have been involved with urgently needs expanding (references required) to avoid becoming a candidate for deletion. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Pershore, improve the article if you can, and leave any comments there. Thanks.-- 118.175.130.58 ( talk) 09:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! An article you have been involved with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Evesham#Last call for Evsham, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there.-- Kudpung ( talk) 13:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I followed your link from the Rhondda Heritage Park to Coalworker's pneumoconiosis, but found the article heavily biased towards an American POV. I've seen tags that flag articles are written as country specific, but can't find the tag now. Any idea what it's called. Cheers, FruitMonkey ( talk) 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I note that you have edited the Kettering page, chiefly by inserting needless internal links: for instance, internally linking 'woolen'. I really don't think we need an internal link to 'wool' and, given the previous comments on your page regarding overlinking, I have reverted them.
Fortnum (
talk)
15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Fortnum ( talk) 16:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Territorial pedantry? Interesting...
I fail to see how linking the word 'woolen' remotely enriches the article. And you have been repeated and frequently warned (indeed blocked) over frequently over-linking articles. Your links have added nothing to the sense of the article; merely cluttered it up with links to common words which do not need further elucidation.
Fortnum ( talk) 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jeremy,
I haven't heard 'Fortnum Hampers' since I was about eleven. It wasn't funny then.
I have noticed that in addition to yesterday's overlinking of the Kettering article, you have gone on a furious spree of editing. Nearly all of these edits have involved creating additional internal links and most of them are questionable to say the least: they have added a lot of blue ink to the screen, and in the same way as linking 'woolen', you have now helped readers who are unsure as to what 'death' is, and other taxing and difficult concepts which, had you not included your linking, would otherwise render the entire article impenetrable. You have also created a link in 'obsessive-compulsive personality disorder' to 'obsessive', which leads to a disambiguation page for obsessive which leads back to the original article! Whilst painfully ironic, I have, as per WP:OVERLINK removed it.
Please stop this overlinking. I'm sure your intentions are of the noblest, and you, as we all do, only wish to improve this encyclopaedia, but I feel this frantic overlinking is doing anything but. You have not been able to explain why linking words such as 'woolen' (and I suspect most of yesterday's 'edits') helps the reader or improves the article in any way: merely stated it's a 'stylistic difference'. It is not, and it would appear that the majority of other editors agree. If this continues, without abatement, I shall have to request action via WP:ANI
Regards,
Fortnum ( talk) 11:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
To squeal vandalism, revert ALL mu edits and immediately threaten a block without open discussion - is over reaction and Im afraid nails your colours to the mast. You may have gone off half cocked. Ive been here before in these wrangles, fortnum and won.
Lets compromise - I'll give you woolen as questionable (and I dont really even agree that it is!) if you grant that some of my edits were / are actually positive, constructive and lift Kettering even if only a little and shpould remain. Lets be friends mate. Wikipedians should stick together. This sort of edit squabble demeans us both, the nature of Wikipedia and discredits our efforts. Jeremy Bolwell ( talk) 08:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr Bolwell,
This silly rant is neither helpful nor appropriate. Please moderate your language.
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the Small finds article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page.-- Kudpung ( talk) 08:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the Fowling article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page.-- Kudpung ( talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the Pontesbury article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page-- Kudpung ( talk) 23:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the Shelsley Walsh article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page-- Kudpung ( talk) 23:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the Ashley Blake article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 09:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the St David's Hall article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 10:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a wikilink on the Max Wall article as it relates to a word used in the common way, the meaning of which the reader could be expected to understand fully in context, without any hyperlink help.. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page. -- Fortnum ( talk) 10:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a wikilink on the Pound (village) article as it relates to a word(s) used in the common way, the meaning of which the reader could be expected to understand fully in context, without any hyperlink help.. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page.-- Fortnum ( talk) 10:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy, after having examined this situation at some length, I will concede that your overlinking is possibly due to you having made other contributions to pages that were already massively overlinked, which may have led you to believe that this kind of linking is normal. It is not, as WP:OVERLINK clearly explains. Please don't think I have been stalking your other edits, but I hope that I have now resolved this for the benefit of all concerned. Do keep up your other good work.-- Kudpung ( talk) 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Llandenny has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
dmyersturnbull ⇒
talk
04:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 04:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! an article you have contributed to, has been selected for the Wikipedia Version 0.8. offline release on DVD and iPhone. If you would like to make any last minutes changes or improvements, you are most welcome to do so. Deadline is midnight UTC on Monday, 11 October. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire/Archive 1#Worcestershire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release for other selected articles you may wish to update.-- Kudpung ( talk) 04:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Nikkimaria has drastically forced on the article Gentry an solitary, unparalleled and uncompromising destruction of an article in the name of summarizing. Under the disguise of summarizing she exchanges material for other material. Yes, reducing was needed and it has been done. The galleries and images in the Gentry article have already been over 50% reduced in the spirit of cooperation. Still the reduction continues. Please help in the discussion. The changes have been major and constructive discussion would bee needed on the Gentry talk page. Thank you. Major Torp ( talk) 12:26, 21 April 2012 (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)
16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Jeremy Bolwell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
A.A.J.S.
13:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your edits to Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester. However, we only capitalise the first word in a section heading, and king, baron etc. are only capitalised if they are part of a formal title (eg. 'the King of France', but 'the French king'. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Capitalization and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Titles for more info and examples. Modest Genius talk 21:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, When you're adding paths to Long-distance footpaths in the UK could you please add the distance in km as well as miles, to be consistent with all the other entries on the page, and to comply with the conversions section of WP:MOS. The whole article was only in km until I put a lot of work into it to add the miles, around 31 October - I'm not a metric fanatic, but the WP convention is to give both units so please convert as you add! Thanks, PamD ( talk) 19:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Could I bring these sites to your attention: http://www.lhcrt.org.uk/ http://www.m6toll.co.uk/about/environment.asp Also, Mr Michael Fabricant MP (UK) is involved with the LHCRT. Thanks, Tom Blacker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.238.40 ( talk) 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
HI thanks for your contrbiutions to the missing villages -I live in the vale of glamorgan! Could you do a favour though and start adding {{Monmouthshire-geo-stub}} at the bottom of articles -see Llansoy. This way we know which articles need developing thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that in all your extremely valuable and useful contributions on Monmouthshire and Wales there is a distinct lack of inline references, which is Wikipedia's preferred style of ensuring that the information the articles contain is verifiable. Rather than attaching bold template messages to your articles, I thought I'd raise it with you here first. The guidance is at WP:REF. I'm far from faultless at this myself but hope I'm getting better - a couple of examples of referenced articles I've done recently are Partrishow and Sudbrook, Monmouthshire. Happy to help at any time. Regards, Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your helpful additional links on the Timeline of Jane Austen. I just wanted to let you know that it is always a good idea to check the links after you make them. Several of the links you created were to disambiguation pages, meaning they were to pages that list all of the possible articles with that title. Usually we try to link directly to the correct page. Thanks again! Awadewit | talk 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, I see you've linked to several Geograph photos from the Rhymney Valley Ridgeway Walk article, but in fact you can upload any Geograph photo onto Wiki Commons and then use it in the article - that's how I did the ones in Leeds Country Way. There's a template {{geograph}} to use in specifying the permissions. PamD ( talk) 09:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I just reverted your edits to River Usk as you added far too many links, which looked ugly and broke up the flow of the text. I have migrated one of the image across to commons and it really is very easy. In the example image I migrated, its geograph number was 410993 and its owner was mfjordan. To upload the image I saved it to local disk, went to the Wikimedia Commons upload form, pointed to the file on local disk then gave it a sensible name. Then I simply put the following text into the Commons image upload form. {{subst:geograph | 410993 | mfjordan}} All other text on the form can be deleted. It is that easy and looks so much better than ugly inline links. -- Cheesy Mike ( talk) 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) :b.t.w. if you need any help, just ask. -- Cheesy Mike ( talk) 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You recently wiki-linked a number of years in the Kennet and Avon Canal and Caen Hill Locks articles. While there is nothing 'wrong' with that, you will find that many editors follow the guidance of WP:DATE, and do not link years, centuries, etc. There is further explanation at Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates. Cheers. EdJogg ( talk) 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Horton Point (horse), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Horton Point (horse).
Dana boomer (
talk)
21:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hallo, When you're adding to Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom could you please format the distances in the established way? The non-breaking space (so that in "73 kilometres" you never get the 73 on one line and the "kilometres" on the next) is available by a mouseclick in the toolbox below the editing window. It is convention that we spell out "kilometres" and abbreviate "mi" (yes, I hate that abbreviation, but there it is). A lot of time has been spent tidying up that page for consistency, so please help by adding anything new in constistent style. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy - good job on copyediting and wikilinking various Wales articles (your name keeps cropping up in my watchlist, so I can see you've been busy!). My only comment is to nudge you in the direction of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Limit links to other time period related articles which says "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." (emphasis in original) Wikilinking lots of individual years probably doesn't add to the utility of the article and may even distract from the other, useful, wikilinks you've been adding. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 00:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't overlink, in general it's only necessary to link something on the first occasion it is mentioned, and more common terms shouldn't be linked at all. David Underdown ( talk) 12:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, Jeremy - just to suggest that adding Category:Visitor attractions in Wales to places like Harlech Castle is unnecessary, since Category:World Heritage Sites in Wales is a sub-category of the "Visitor attractions" category and so World Heritage Sites are effectively included there already. See no 3 of these guidelines. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Your Welsh religion category changes are overcategorization as well; please don't do this. Bencherlite Talk 10:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy! With regard to your multiple edits today on the Huddersfield article - (47 edits in 95 minutes). I think you were a little exuberant on your quest for wikilinking :0). Most of them were not required as its not necessary to link every reference to common words (Note the post by David Underdown above). Additionally please ensure your linking to the correct item; For example Gamma does not have quite the same meaning as Gamma ray when referring to Gamma irradiation scanning!' Leaving wiki-links open to several meanings is also a bad idea, as per your link to Liberal, you need to disambiguate the link to a specific meaning. Accordingly I have just spent two hours and 53 edits reverting those that needed to be. I have disambiguated those that I could, reworded some others to give the same meaning as intended by the original editors, a couple, that do not or may never have articles to link to I have Hyperlinked to their respective websites, where appropriate, such as the Hospital trust. An editing tip for checking the wikilinks is to use the 'Preview' button and then hover your mouse cursor over the link shown. That will then either show the only link available or a list of articles that you can select from, or check for further specific links, before pressing the 'Save page' button ;0) Additionally I have reverted your mass deletions of the people who have received Civic Honours in the town. Your personal selection of who you feel are the most notable do not really matter, I personally felt some you had deleted were quite notable. Its best to leave the listing neutral. Please note though that the list is as they say 'fixed in concrete'. Since Huddersfield became a part of Kirklees and ceased to have its own Town Council and Mayor no further additions can ever be made to it. Any new potential honours recipients from the town will need to be put to the Kirklees Council. Richard Harvey ( talk) 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from vandalising articles. Removal of factual information, as you have repeadtedly done on the Huddersfield article is regarded as vandalism, Additionally you have been requested by numerous editors to cease unrequired wikilinking of common words and dates and not disambiguating links correctly. You have failed to reply to these requests or refrain from the type of editing that is causing problems. Continued editing of this type will be taken in bad faith as vandalism and may result in your editing being blocked. Richard Harvey ( talk) 14:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a helpful note - try to be constructive with your edits -- follow the guidelines on not overlinking single common words or stand alone dates, and don't delete useful information without a comment. Hope this helps, -- mervyn ( talk)
Hi Jeremy I've noticed that you have an interest in editing pub articles. I've also edited some over the past few years. I have been looking vlosley at the pub articles over the past couple of days and feel that there is room for improvement - especially in terms of organisation, referencing, and notability. The pub articles attract people who want to write about a pub they like regardless of Wikipedia's guidelines, and there has been a tendency for some non-notable pubs to be added either as stand-alone articles or as part of a list. It would be helpful to think about a standard approach to structuring pub articles, and some minimal notability guidelines. And to think about the overall organisation of the pub articles in general. Would you be interested in getting involved? Regards SilkTork * YES! 15:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that a couple of times you've added links to articles without piping them, which would ensure that the name of the article itself doesn't appear in the displayed text where it would disrupt the flow and grammar. Easy enough to do - instead of simply putting in Chepstow Museum, say, you add in | followed by the words you want to appear in the text, before the final ]], such as I'm doing here. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy, I've just created a page for Penrhys (and boy will it get vandalised over the coming years), but it seems it is part of the Cistercian Way, a page which you created. Could you see if you could find some references to this so we can update both our pages if it's true. Keep up the good fight. FruitMonkey ( talk) 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You made this edit deleting a section of Cwmystwyth and did not state the reason. Please explain? Thanks. ∞☼ Geaugagrrl (T)/ (C) 03:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, just a quick FYI to let you know that wikipedia guidelines generally suggest that one does not add both a main category and a subcategory within the main category in the same article. I tossed some of your categorization because it was overkill. This is not to say that the horse categories aren't a mess and need serious reorganization, but until that happens, we are trying to keep "Equestrianism" down to more of a list of other subcategories than a list of articles itself...not that we're there, but feel free to swing by Wikiproject Equine and lend a hand! Montanabw (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy. I'm a bit puzzled by your contribution to the Newbridge page in which you say : "X-Factor star Leanne Wolves, who won the first X-Factor Series in the band Triple X with Marcella and Skip. Their only known hit to date is 'Gimme Some of That!' B-side to 'You Know You've Got it!'. She has just been signed to accompany C'est La Vie la Sest, on their latest world tour." Is this some sort of wind-up? The first winner of X-Factor was Steve Brookstein. Marcella and Skip are the subject of a 'bad audition' video on YouTube, and Googling 'Leanne Wolves' produces no results, and neither does C'est La Vie la Sest. Can you enlighten me, please? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 18:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Jeremy, but I think that 'in the team of Great Britain at the 1952 Summer Olympics in the boxing squad' is a really ugly grammatical change that you've made. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, I've just been having another look at the edits you made to Dai Dower last month. You seem to have 'Wikified' the names of six boxers who don't have pages on Wikipedia. As this adds nothing at all to the article, other than making it look messy, I'm a bit puzzled why you've done that. Can you explain your thinking behind such edits? ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 17:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy, the standard way of describing a place on Wikepdia is usually: <placename>, <county>, <country>
You seem to be breaking this convention by changing Wales to North Wales. The term North Wales does not refer to a country, but merely a geography region. If you read the North Wales and South Wales articles you will see that they are also poorly defined region. For example the city of Newport can be defined as being in South Wales but is not covered by South Wales Police. Parts of Gwynedd are not in the "North Wales" regional Assembly constituency but are part of "Mid and West Wales". Is Carmarthen is South Wales or West Wales?
Comparing articles on Welsh places to those elsewhere is also a good guide:
I accept that in many of the articles I have written, or edited, I do use the terms "north Wales"; "north-east Wales"; etc. but merely as geographic pointers within Wales. Using the terms North Wales or South Wales to identify places could imply two separate countries as in North Korea and South Korea.
So I can see no serious precedence for your moves, which seem totally illogical.
Perhaps this issue should go out as an RFQ? -- Maelor 13:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
(<-) Hello guys. This issue is adequately covered in our policy entitled Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). In short, for better or worse, we use the convention "<placename>, <principal area>". -- Jza84 | Talk 14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy take care. You just deleted the Ruthin article???? -- Maelor 14:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't overlink, especially with common terms. Is it really necessary to Wikilink words like hill, beach, sand, park etc? Overlinking spoils the text. As does linking every date unnecessarily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.88.202 ( talk) 11:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Jeremy Bolwell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your repeated overlinking. Thank you. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 15:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy - no-one involved in your areas of interest wants to lose you from this, as you make a great number of very useful contributions to articles. You are certainly not a vandal, quite the opposite, you have helped build a great number of articles. However, I strongly suggest that you look carefully at the advice you are getting here. You do make valid points about the benefits of linking as an educational tool, and if you disagree with the current guidance you've every reason to seek to change it as others have mentioned. But I suspect that if you were to continue with your approach so far, despite the advice you've had, the results would be counter-productive and I hope you don't go down that route. Regards, Ghmyrtle ( talk) 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry it's come to this, but you cannot deny that you were given a fair chance. I'm also sorry you feel I'm bullying you, or trying to be protective about "my" articles - this is in no way the case. I'd be happy to see you make constructive improvements to any articles once your block has expired. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reduced the length of your block, as I'm convinced you're editing in good faith and have made some good contributions. I also apologise for the reference to vandalism, which I appreciate was not the case. However, please bear in mind everything that has been stated above and on WP:AN, particularly by Exploding Boy, and take time to consider links carefully in future. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 05:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy. How about changing the wording of the links from:
*[http://www.geograph.org.uk/search.php?i=3538564 www.geograph.co.uk : photos of Pontfadog and surrounding area]
to
*[http://www.geograph.org.uk/search.php?i=3538564 Photos of Pontfadog and surrounding area on Geograph]
I think it look tidier. What do you think? Maelor 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your very useful edits to my little entry on village pounds. When I tried to link to a pound entry a while back I was gobsmacked to find every sort of pound represented except a village pound. The Geograph pound photos are wonderful. I didn't realise so many of these old structures still existed. 21stCenturyGreenstuff ( talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy. Hope you don't mind me taking an interest, but I noticed that you've started a new article on this character. I don't know if you've thought about it, but have you considered submitting it as a "
Did You Know" new article for the WP
main page? If so, I've got a bit of experience there and I'd be happy to suggest a few formating changes which the article would need to pass muster - such as the title being changed to
Trevor Williams (politician) - without the "Sir" and with the more usual (English) spelling, also inline references etc.. I've also got a book "Civil War and Restoration in Monmouthshire" by Jeremy Knight which mentions him a good deal. If you'd like me to help let me know, and I can give some time to it later this week (but not in the next day or two). Otherwise, just ignore me and carry on the good work (not too many links though!)
Ghmyrtle (
talk)
22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I've made some editorial changes, as well as the move request (see above). Hope that doesn't tread on anyone's toes. I'll suggest it for " Did You Know" as well, as a multi-editor collaboration. Could do with succession boxes and an infobox maybe - I can't track down a picture of him though. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
If you look at a photo on geograph then it has a link concerning using this picture on wikipedia. You can load them up and display them in Gallerys. I say this as your use in the Crickhowell article shows enthusiasm (great!) but will I think end up in someone deleting the links or the article will fail in other places as wikipedia does not like external links in its articles. I'd be happy to help Victuallers ( talk) 12:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy. I see from previous edits that you have edited Croft Castle. I have found a bit more information about it which I've posted here. I thought you might be interested. ∞☼ Geaugagrrl (T)/ (C) 05:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Can I ask why you removed Somerset Rural Life Museum from the list at Tithe barn as the barn obviously performed the functions of a Tithe Barn for the Abbey?— Rod talk 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi! A WikiProject Worcestershire has now been created to better manage all articles that relate in any way to the county even if they overlap with other categories or projects. Please visit the project pages and if you see listed any articles you have written or contributed to, or if you would like to see more active development of them, don't hesitate to join the project. |
We look forward to your contribs; however, before editing any of these articles please follow the recommendations and Wiki guidelines.-- Kudpung ( talk) 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Elmley Castle |
. -- Kudpung ( talk) 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If references are not added soon it may be deleted. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Holt, Worcestershire
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its local parent project as needing either a little attention to style, updating, or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see RGS Worcester and The Alice Ottley School. -- Kudpung ( talk) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jeremy. Can I ask that you have another look at the edits you recently made to Isle of Anglesey and try to reduce some of the links. I would think, as it stands, that this is a clear case of overlinking. Do we, for example, really need a link from "Roman coins". Surely, having already chosen to link "Romans", the average reader will be able to work out what "Roman coins" are. I know it's not always easy to get linking in the right proportions, but when a section has more blue ink than black it is usually a fair indication of over-zealous linking. Skinsmoke ( talk) 14:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! An article you have been involved with urgently needs expanding (references required) to avoid becoming a candidate for deletion. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Pershore, improve the article if you can, and leave any comments there. Thanks.-- 118.175.130.58 ( talk) 09:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! An article you have been involved with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Evesham#Last call for Evsham, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there.-- Kudpung ( talk) 13:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I followed your link from the Rhondda Heritage Park to Coalworker's pneumoconiosis, but found the article heavily biased towards an American POV. I've seen tags that flag articles are written as country specific, but can't find the tag now. Any idea what it's called. Cheers, FruitMonkey ( talk) 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I note that you have edited the Kettering page, chiefly by inserting needless internal links: for instance, internally linking 'woolen'. I really don't think we need an internal link to 'wool' and, given the previous comments on your page regarding overlinking, I have reverted them.
Fortnum (
talk)
15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Fortnum ( talk) 16:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Territorial pedantry? Interesting...
I fail to see how linking the word 'woolen' remotely enriches the article. And you have been repeated and frequently warned (indeed blocked) over frequently over-linking articles. Your links have added nothing to the sense of the article; merely cluttered it up with links to common words which do not need further elucidation.
Fortnum ( talk) 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jeremy,
I haven't heard 'Fortnum Hampers' since I was about eleven. It wasn't funny then.
I have noticed that in addition to yesterday's overlinking of the Kettering article, you have gone on a furious spree of editing. Nearly all of these edits have involved creating additional internal links and most of them are questionable to say the least: they have added a lot of blue ink to the screen, and in the same way as linking 'woolen', you have now helped readers who are unsure as to what 'death' is, and other taxing and difficult concepts which, had you not included your linking, would otherwise render the entire article impenetrable. You have also created a link in 'obsessive-compulsive personality disorder' to 'obsessive', which leads to a disambiguation page for obsessive which leads back to the original article! Whilst painfully ironic, I have, as per WP:OVERLINK removed it.
Please stop this overlinking. I'm sure your intentions are of the noblest, and you, as we all do, only wish to improve this encyclopaedia, but I feel this frantic overlinking is doing anything but. You have not been able to explain why linking words such as 'woolen' (and I suspect most of yesterday's 'edits') helps the reader or improves the article in any way: merely stated it's a 'stylistic difference'. It is not, and it would appear that the majority of other editors agree. If this continues, without abatement, I shall have to request action via WP:ANI
Regards,
Fortnum ( talk) 11:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
To squeal vandalism, revert ALL mu edits and immediately threaten a block without open discussion - is over reaction and Im afraid nails your colours to the mast. You may have gone off half cocked. Ive been here before in these wrangles, fortnum and won.
Lets compromise - I'll give you woolen as questionable (and I dont really even agree that it is!) if you grant that some of my edits were / are actually positive, constructive and lift Kettering even if only a little and shpould remain. Lets be friends mate. Wikipedians should stick together. This sort of edit squabble demeans us both, the nature of Wikipedia and discredits our efforts. Jeremy Bolwell ( talk) 08:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr Bolwell,
This silly rant is neither helpful nor appropriate. Please moderate your language.
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the Small finds article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page.-- Kudpung ( talk) 08:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the Fowling article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page.-- Kudpung ( talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the Pontesbury article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page-- Kudpung ( talk) 23:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the Shelsley Walsh article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page-- Kudpung ( talk) 23:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the Ashley Blake article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 09:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed some excessive overlinking from the St David's Hall article. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 10:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a wikilink on the Max Wall article as it relates to a word used in the common way, the meaning of which the reader could be expected to understand fully in context, without any hyperlink help.. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page. -- Fortnum ( talk) 10:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a wikilink on the Pound (village) article as it relates to a word(s) used in the common way, the meaning of which the reader could be expected to understand fully in context, without any hyperlink help.. If for any reason you feel this was done in error, please discuss on the article's talk page.-- Fortnum ( talk) 10:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy, after having examined this situation at some length, I will concede that your overlinking is possibly due to you having made other contributions to pages that were already massively overlinked, which may have led you to believe that this kind of linking is normal. It is not, as WP:OVERLINK clearly explains. Please don't think I have been stalking your other edits, but I hope that I have now resolved this for the benefit of all concerned. Do keep up your other good work.-- Kudpung ( talk) 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The article Llandenny has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{
dated prod}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. The
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
dmyersturnbull ⇒
talk
04:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 04:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy Bolwell! an article you have contributed to, has been selected for the Wikipedia Version 0.8. offline release on DVD and iPhone. If you would like to make any last minutes changes or improvements, you are most welcome to do so. Deadline is midnight UTC on Monday, 11 October. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire/Archive 1#Worcestershire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release for other selected articles you may wish to update.-- Kudpung ( talk) 04:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Nikkimaria has drastically forced on the article Gentry an solitary, unparalleled and uncompromising destruction of an article in the name of summarizing. Under the disguise of summarizing she exchanges material for other material. Yes, reducing was needed and it has been done. The galleries and images in the Gentry article have already been over 50% reduced in the spirit of cooperation. Still the reduction continues. Please help in the discussion. The changes have been major and constructive discussion would bee needed on the Gentry talk page. Thank you. Major Torp ( talk) 12:26, 21 April 2012 (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)
16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)