|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Wembley Park has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
Wembley Park was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our
reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (
https://lndn.blogspot.co.uk/2004/05/?m=0) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
blog,
forum,
free web hosting service,
fansite, or similar site (see
'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's
copyright (see
Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised,
reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see
conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk) 17:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi MetrolandNW! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) |
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I would like an administrator to perform a page move.
-- MetrolandNW ( talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, many thanks for your contributions to London articles. However, I note that you are adding naked URLs as references. Since websites are often reorganised, URLs are subject to "link rot" - they work for a little while, then fail. To make them a bit easier to trace, it helps to use a fuller citation, like {{cite web |url=http://www.abc.com |title=All about the suburbs |publisher=ABC |accessdate=25 April 2018}} which you can put inside ref tags as usual.
One other thing - we normally don't add new material and citations to the lead section: the material goes in the body, and we cite it there, then simply summarize it in the lead. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've started an article for Hanger Hill which may be of interest given your username. Crookesmoor ( talk) 12:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Just as a general note, highway articles need to keep a balance between a basic description (which can be seen better on a map), politics, environmental concerns and safety, and any general criticism. You might find Roader's Digest - the SABRE Wiki is a more effective place to add basic road information, it also doesn't have stringent sourcing policies here as it caters for an enthusiast rather than a general audience. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siobhan Benita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cornish ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
In several Greater London articles, such as Pinner I notice you are adding a lot of and very specific information about distances to nearby places. That detail is not contributing anything to the articles and in any case is too detailed for the lead which is meant to summarise the article below. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 12:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Being in articles elsewhere does not mean it is the way to do it. UK places are heavily edited by new editors and IPs which causes a lot of variation to what has been accepted as consensus ways to do things. As well as that, each region will have its own consensus approach, Greater London being one such case. For example, places in GL are supposed to be called districts, not towns. 'Distances from...' is such an arbitrary fact that it cannot really be measured properly and would not get agreement or be confirmed by reliable sources, especially when talking about areas within a conurbation like GL. Why not visit the appropriate wikiProject for GL or wherever and look at the numerous discussions about all sorts of things to do with UK places? (Roger8Roger)
WP London and WP UK Placenames is where to go. The overriding rule is common usage in reliable sources, and if needed weight. I understand that the term district is used by Greater London Authority, so the term district has a sort of official status and that has been adopted by W-Project London. Common usage still comes first though. As a rule WP increasingly uses 'London' to refer to the entire 'Greater London' ceremonial county area. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brentwood ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Your additions to London geography articles, using odd language such as "southern Greater London" when clearer alternative "south London" exists are being reverted by other editors. Please stop introducing or reintroducing this or adding it to other articles. MRSC ( talk) 08:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Same issues as have been highlighted here before are cropping up with your edits to London articles. Discussion centralised here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Geographic_location_in_neighbourhood_articles MRSC ( talk) 08:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sky Store.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Wembley Park has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
Wembley Park was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our
reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (
https://lndn.blogspot.co.uk/2004/05/?m=0) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
blog,
forum,
free web hosting service,
fansite, or similar site (see
'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's
copyright (see
Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised,
reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see
conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an
external link that does comply with our
policies and
guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to
undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's
external links guideline for more information, and consult my
list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see
my FAQ page. Thanks! --
XLinkBot (
talk) 17:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi MetrolandNW! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) |
![]() | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I would like an administrator to perform a page move.
-- MetrolandNW ( talk) 14:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, many thanks for your contributions to London articles. However, I note that you are adding naked URLs as references. Since websites are often reorganised, URLs are subject to "link rot" - they work for a little while, then fail. To make them a bit easier to trace, it helps to use a fuller citation, like {{cite web |url=http://www.abc.com |title=All about the suburbs |publisher=ABC |accessdate=25 April 2018}} which you can put inside ref tags as usual.
One other thing - we normally don't add new material and citations to the lead section: the material goes in the body, and we cite it there, then simply summarize it in the lead. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've started an article for Hanger Hill which may be of interest given your username. Crookesmoor ( talk) 12:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Just as a general note, highway articles need to keep a balance between a basic description (which can be seen better on a map), politics, environmental concerns and safety, and any general criticism. You might find Roader's Digest - the SABRE Wiki is a more effective place to add basic road information, it also doesn't have stringent sourcing policies here as it caters for an enthusiast rather than a general audience. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siobhan Benita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cornish ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
In several Greater London articles, such as Pinner I notice you are adding a lot of and very specific information about distances to nearby places. That detail is not contributing anything to the articles and in any case is too detailed for the lead which is meant to summarise the article below. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 12:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Being in articles elsewhere does not mean it is the way to do it. UK places are heavily edited by new editors and IPs which causes a lot of variation to what has been accepted as consensus ways to do things. As well as that, each region will have its own consensus approach, Greater London being one such case. For example, places in GL are supposed to be called districts, not towns. 'Distances from...' is such an arbitrary fact that it cannot really be measured properly and would not get agreement or be confirmed by reliable sources, especially when talking about areas within a conurbation like GL. Why not visit the appropriate wikiProject for GL or wherever and look at the numerous discussions about all sorts of things to do with UK places? (Roger8Roger)
WP London and WP UK Placenames is where to go. The overriding rule is common usage in reliable sources, and if needed weight. I understand that the term district is used by Greater London Authority, so the term district has a sort of official status and that has been adopted by W-Project London. Common usage still comes first though. As a rule WP increasingly uses 'London' to refer to the entire 'Greater London' ceremonial county area. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brentwood ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 08:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Your additions to London geography articles, using odd language such as "southern Greater London" when clearer alternative "south London" exists are being reverted by other editors. Please stop introducing or reintroducing this or adding it to other articles. MRSC ( talk) 08:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Same issues as have been highlighted here before are cropping up with your edits to London articles. Discussion centralised here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Geographic_location_in_neighbourhood_articles MRSC ( talk) 08:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sky Store.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)