User talk:Dmcm2008

Can you explain the reasoning behind your edits, they do not seem to be accurate just portraing you personal view of Liverpool and ignoring the relality set out by Government etc.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not necessarily just my personal view it is linking Liverpool districts beyond Government boundaries, ie city region.

The provide some references. The Government Boundaries are what Wikipedia uses. If you want to create of City region Cat but do not claim that these places are within Liverpool when they are not.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this so i respect your views, I don't mean to offend. These towns and villages are considered part of Liverpool culture even if they are not within the city council boundary. I realise association with Liverpool is emotive and as an avid Everton fan I also know some people take the boundaries very seriously when talking about Everton moving to Kirkby, which in reality is as just as part of Liverpool as Walton or Crosby regardless of Government boundaries. Some reference to Liverpool is apt.

It is apt but what you are changeing is not just Text they create links. I have created Category:Liverpool City Region and added the Liverpool cat to that. I know it is emotive that is why HMGs version is used simply because it is offical and well defined. I'm not sue the Wigan is part of the City Region. Maghull is best descibed as a Dormitory town for Liverpool.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i appreciate the feedback as i am learning but struggling to do everything correctly so to speak. If you check Liverpool Vauxhall district that I have created I would appreciate any help on that. Tell me what you think of the Vauxhall identity.

In response to your request for my thoughts, I usually do my best to avoid this issue wherever possible as it's a Wikipedia 'minefield'. The problem is Liverpool has expanded over the years with surrounding towns and villages becoming contiguous with the city. Maghull, Bootle and Crosby are towns themselves with their own identities and could be described as outlying suburbs or dormitory towns of the city of Liverpool. Perhaps point out their relative distance from the city in an article on a settlement to emphasise this. As far as places in the politically separate boroughs of Knowsley and Sefton go, these points are probably your best bet.

The best course of action is to try and achieve a consensus on an article talk page. It might also be worth checking out articles on other UK cities to see how this contentious issue has been dealt with there. There's probably also been discussion within related Wikiprojects, such as WP:WikiProject England and WP:WikiProject UK geography. But if you can already verify disputable content, even better - just add a reliable reference to the offending statement.

If you've not already found it, a good general guideline for writing about places is at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. Snowy 1973 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for advice i had not read it until now. I am unlikely to find common ground with other users who fail to find common ground with me - if that makes sense. I have tried to be moderate in my edits - in linking these suburb towns to Liverpool - however some users appear to want to avoid any reference to Liverpool and reverse my work. It is plainly obvious to me that they did not discuss with me reason for reverting nor to they posess the knowledge that backs up my view. I WILL make efforts to leave things to discuss, after all if it settles it by compromise the great. Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Sparrow Hall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that this item for Sparrow Hall is very short if that leads to deleting it so be it. I will add a defenition in Fazakerley.

If you carry on with your unrferenced edits you are very likeley to be blocked as a Vandal. You have just reomved the pronunciation guide from fazakerley again.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No problem. It does not appear like that. It appears as an error in text. Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Belle Valle Park, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Belle Valle Park is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Belle Valle Park, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Belle Vale Park, I did not set this article up but it was spelt incorrectly as Belle Valle so I tried to amend this. Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC) For reference Belle Vale Park is now set up. Dmcm2008 (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Don't know if you've already found this out, but since you asked... There are a number of different ways to add references to articles and how these references can be displayed on the page. (Use PREVIEW when editing to check layout before submitting your edit). Always remember to add <ref> & </ref> before and after your reference.
1. Harvard style referencing (books), e.g: * Lewis, P.R. (2007). ''Disaster on the Dee: Robert Stephenson's Nemesis of 1847'', Tempus Publishing. ISBN 978 0 7524 4266 2.
which looks like this...

• Lewis, P.R. (2007). Disaster on the Dee: Robert Stephenson's Nemesis of 1847, Tempus Publishing. ISBN 978 0 7524 4266 2.

2. Footnotes for inline citations (books & websites) for more specific refs and useful for facts that could be challenged, e.g:

According to the 2001 Census, Vauxhall had a population of 6,699. <ref>[http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=561326&c=vauxhall&d=14&e=16&g=359600&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1202764962500&enc=1 Office for National Statistics 2001 Census: Vauxhall (Ward)]</ref>

or with more details & better formatting - use Template:Cite web (Access date is the date you retrieved the reference from a website)...

According to the 2001 Census, Vauxhall had a population of 6,699. <ref>{{citeweb|url=http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=561326&c=vauxhall&d=14&e=16&g=359600&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1202764962500&enc=1|title=2001 Census: Vauxhall (Ward)|work=Office for National Statistics|accessdate=2008-02-11}}</ref>

or for books, showing the authors name, title, page(s), date, publisher & ISBN number (add as much info as you can) - use Template:Cite book...

The closure of Eastham marked the last use of paddle steamers on the river.<ref name="Mersey Ferries - Volume 1">{{citebook|title=Mersey Ferries - Volume 1|first=TB|last=Maund|page=p154|publisher=Transport Publishing Co. Ltd|date=1991|isbn=0-86317-166-4}} </ref>

For each article, if it's not already there, add {{reflist}} under the References subheading.

For more indepth detail, take a look here: Wikipedia:Citing sources. For tagging articles/sentences to request citations and for adding references, a full list of templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you need any more assistance - and well done on Vauxhall, Liverpool. Snowy 1973 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Your page on Johnny Morrissey is currently listed in [Category:People from Liverpool] - but under 'J' for Johnny. To list him under 'M' for Morrissey, add the following to the bottom of the page (just above all the categories):

{{DEFAULTSORT:Morrissey, Johnny}}

Now every category that you have put on his page will default to his surname first on the category lists. Hope this helps - and keep up the good work. Snowy 1973 (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for the contact,

Whiston may effectively be a suburb of the City of Liverpool, but it does not lie within the statutory boundaries of the city. Simillarly postcodes are not used for geographic demarcation, but to better facilitate the delivery of post.

Do you have a source that Whiston is a suburb of Liverpool? By the same logic, Bolton could be a suburb of Manchester. I would be more inclined to go for something link "Whiston is a place/town/village/settlement within the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley, Merseyside, England. It is X miles from Y and has a population of Z. It's close proximity to Liverpool effectively makes it a suburb of the city" But it would need some sort of citation for verification. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see you've been making this change across Knowsley. I'm afraid this isn't going to be permissable. The editting community works from statutory boundaries at all times and you've added several unreferenced claims as to what is a "suburb" and what is not; I'm sure these won't last. Try to define this issue differently, perhaps by saying "X is a place in Knowsley, Merseyside, England. It is part of the Liverpool Urban Area/Liverpool LUZ." "Suburb" is at best a word used by geographers with a very specific meaning, and at worst a point-of-view ambigous term that locals find objectionable. I'd try to keep things factual and let the readers decide if it's a suburb or not. If there is enough of a consensus, I'd consider "effectively a suburb of Liverpool", but used with care. Does that help?

On another note, if you take an interest in writing about places in the UK, the WP:UKCITIES guide has some helpful tips to achieve thoroughness. It would be nice to see some of these Merseyside entries develop into strong and complete articles. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense at your latest message, particularly when I've merely tried to help. Phrases like "your talk is bullshit" and "you are talking through your backside" are neither helpful or engaging and against our policy on no personal attacks. I would like a full apology. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your rudeness, frankly, is not likely to facilitate a pleasant or effective usership for you on Wikipedia. However, WP:V trumps all other policies. Therefore, do you have a source that Huyton is a suburb of Liverpool? If you do not, then I am quite within my rights to remove such a claim as it is original research and a point-of-view claim. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than post to various pages and people with remarks about me, could you please focus on the issue in hand and cite your sources? If the claim is so well known it should be easy to reference. Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. I have a source that Huyton is a town and civil parish, but not a suburb. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please refrain from using obscene language on my talk page, I find it offensive. That you don't "give a shite" about what I think is not the way forwards here. Wikipedia is a community project built on mutual respect. Using foul language and being rude to users who are challenging unsourced claims is just not going to help persuade editors round to your point of view.

A cursory glance through your contributions suggest that your sole purpose revolves around this issue of making places "suburbs of Liverpool" and thus it clearly means alot to you. However, your claim that these are "suburbs" of Liverpool is subjective, and not based on any official criteria; indeed, at what point does a place stop being a suburb of Liverpool? As you have not provided a reference for your claim I intend to remove it from the relevant articles; I have the articles' best interests at heart here, categorically. If you have any remarks to make about this, please leave them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Suburbs_of_Liverpool, where a central discussion can take place, however I trust that you will respect Wikipedia's principles on WP:V, WP:A, WP:OR and WP:RS and refrain from reverting. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Just to let you know that following a fresh bout of you posting incivil remarks about me to various pages I've been to, a consensus against your ideas was formed here. This is telling that it is more productive on Wikipedia to concentrate on content rather than the contributor. If you'd spent more time on hunting for source material, and worked with other users a different outcome may have occured. Wikipedia is built on looking at evidence, sharing it with others and presenting it with neutrality and citation, not personal opinion.

Let me make this explicit now however, I do not want any sarcastic or foul messages either left for me or left about me, including anything that states I'm "pathetic" or a "vandal". As I've stated twice already, I find such comments abusive. Any such further remark and I will seek advice/intervention from an administrator, which may result in your account (and IP) being blocked from editting. Instead, if you still disagree with the outcome, take your opinions here and state your case, please. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "Borough Council" is a group of people, not a division of land, and you seem to have these confused. Anyway you have not provided citation for your claim, and have instead canvassed other users with slander about me - time that could've been spent working on articles. Also, a consensus exists that your idea (and it is a sole perspective here which is why the issue is problematic) is not the right way forwards.

I'm afraid you've really misunderstood how Wikipedia works. "Local knowledge" and "personal opinion" are not part of the project's principles. You need reliable sources and co-operation. At the rate you are going you look likely to loose your editting priveliges, which would be a shame. Please self-revert and state your case here (that's your invitation to discuss by the way). I note that several people now, including a local, disagree with your point-of-view; not one agrees. Don't you think it's time to change your stance on the issue? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, please note that:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

The above is official policy. Can you please revert your unsourced additions? You're promoting a personal point of view on these place-articles that is not verifiable. As a matter of support now, can you please re-visit the introduction page for more infomation about how the site operates and what its principles are. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your note, but we've had a very civilised exchange of opinions with the user in question, so as far as I'm concerned there is no problem. --Jotel (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dmcm2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

harrassment and manipulation

Decline reason:

reason —you edit warred and called the other user's edits vandalism. As for the other user being blocked, take it up with the blocking admin when your block expires. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I hope you are also repremanding the other user? The user Jza84 in question has been reversing my edits without discussion and being very ignorant to my views. Quite narrow minded infact. He was reversing my edits on districts of Liverpool - those which fall outside the city council boundary and in other councils - Knowsley MBC and Sefton MBC. This other user has been harrassing me by changing my edits. I have been updating these pages for a few months and including linking these districts as 'suburbs' of Liverpool. It was not nice the way he reversed my edits which were not wrong. They point out certain places ie Huyton, are also suburbs of Liverpool aswell as; being places in their own right in another borough. I was shopping in Huyton last night. This editor has limited knowledge of Liverpool and is quoting wikipedia to me. I am a resident of Liverpool and I knew these places are linked to the city. Any definition can be used, but they form "suburbs"....which is why i used that particular word. This person has been reverting my edits so why should I be the person blocked? I have contributed to Wikipedia eg Vauxhall, Liverpool is almost entirely my edit. I question the motives of this other user- infact I thought he was a wind up merchant. It does not appear to be in the spirits of wikipedia where anyone can edit. As most articles require "expanding" i contributed something that is worthwhile. Not just saying they were suburbs but adding maps, or what other districts are nearby. So I feel my ability has been put in to question. Notleast by another user who has remained conflicting with me, Kitchen Knife. I am concerned that these users have been quite hostile to me. If I am blocked for 24 hours as a temp punishment for reversing edits, so be it. However I must question motives of other users.

Hello Dmcm2008,

I reported you for breach of WP:3RR following a warning I gave you not to edit war. I did make it explicit to you that you would incur a reduction in editting privileges for your actions. I am not a vandal, but one of the most experienced contributors to UK geography articles on Wikipedia. I am here to support you where possible. Simillarly I believe User:Kitchen Knife has acted in good faith.

You've claimed that I have "been reversing your edits without discussion and being very ignorant to my views". However, it was I who asked for a third opinion (here) and I who offered a compromise (here). Simillarly you've stated that users have been "hostile" towards you, but it is yourself who's left obscene comments and remarks about myself on various pages. Just so you're aware of it, every edit you make is tracable and avaliable as evidence of your actions; you're making accusations that just won't stand up. I would urge you to reconsider your position.

Now, I'm a reasonable and responisble editor. What I want to see is a way forwards here. Although I want to offer a compromise, I object to the phrase "is a suburb of Liverpool" for any place outside its city boundaries. I do not think your preference of wording is best practice because:

a) a suburb does not have a central business district - Huyton, Whiston and other such places do, meaning they are not suburbs of any other place.

b) your statement is unsupported by citation.

c) your stating that Liverpool is wider than it actually is, when it has statutory boundaries.

d) Some places are of equal distance to other major settlements, like Warrington, Widnes, Wigan, Southport. Why does Liverpool take preference?

e) postcodes are set with the purpose of facilitating the delivery of post - not as a form of geographic demarcation.

f) Knowsley and Sefton have their own councils and majors seperate to Liverpool.

g) These places are not contiguous with Liverpool. They have a distinct history.

Finally, in Lancashire. The buildings of England. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1969. pp. pp 126, 207–262, 420–1. ISBN 0-140-71036-1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help), Nikolaus Pevsner gives a list of Liverpool suburbs from Aigburth to Woolton; Whiston & Huyton are not included. The weight of evidence against your claim is too high. As has been stated, "local knowledge" is not a substitute for citation I'm afraid.

What I want to see as a compromise is something like:

a) "X" is a place within the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton, in Merseyside, England. (per WP:UKCITIES).

b) the distance to Liverpool (avaliable from here), and where appropriate, another major settlement like Warrington, Wigan, Southport etc.

c) if the place is part of the Liverpool Urban Area then this should be said (a list of localities that are, are found here).

d) if (and only if) citation (from a reliable source) can be found to support it, then mention that the place has been described as a "suburb" and/or a "commuter town"/"dormitory village". However, the source needs to be clear that it means a suburb/commuter town of "Liverpool". This is per the requirements of WP:A. Usually the NWRDA or local authority material is the best source for this type of thing.

The above is what I'd like to see, but I'm open to fair and reasonable negotiation. Please accept this as an olive branch for us to work this issue out effectively. On the flipside however, nasty remarks and distruptive behavoir will be reported by myself, though I hope this will not be the route I would need to take.

--Jza84 |  Talk  15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to negotiate a truce. However you must come down off your high horse. You consider yourself to be among the most experienced. Fair. I am inexperienced. However my knowledge of Liverpool is being brought in to question by you and a few others and I find this an insult. You are quoting a number of issues or criteria. For example use of suburb has come into question described as too broader term. This may be so. And I would be willing to address that. I certainly never expected a term that is suitable to be so offensive to you. I do not know what your aim is, but you are not allowing me to edit freely because you are anylising everything I am doing and saying it needs citation and verification. If everyone was to do this no article would be written because we would have to citate every bit of information. Why must my assertion that places are suburbs be brought in to question by someone who has no interest in the local area-you have done exactly the same with Knowsley as it is referred to as Knowsley Village. Various maps say Knowsley but it is regarded as Knowsley Village but you insist on scruitinising this to the letter of the Wikipedia law to remove my edit. Well done on your part. Somewhere on that statement on your profile 'anyone can edit' is cobblers. Your obviously want to 'pick' on me for want of a better phrase. And your KNOWLEDGE OF WIKIPEDIA is stopping me from editing. Why then do you not let MY KNOWLEDGE of Liverpool enhance these pages? I would compromise in some way. It does not have to say 'suburb of Liverpool' if it upsets you so much. A new choice of words can be added. As I am a new editor I am prone to stepping on peoples toes, but I edit in good faith and you have only made you 'lofty' position in Wikipedia known by creating i'll feeling. Don't suggest I am entirely to blame - if you are so experienced you would have been more moderate in your approach. Instead you have edited and reversed to suit you rigid rules and not left room for info that is common knowledge. Back to suburbs. Why are you doing this (Jza84)? You have edited Orrell, perhaps it needs re defining anyway..Orrell and Orrell Park are two separate districts and Orrell Park is separate from Walton. Please amend you editing. Dmcm2008 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC) It is such a shame the editor Jza84 has such an arrogant way to edit by scrubbing any edits of other people. I was enjoying my time as an editor and thought I was contributing to WP pages on an around things to do with Liverpool. However this editor appears to want to engage in tit for tat scraps with me for what purpose I do not know. I am currently barred for 24 hours and when I return if I find this user is continuing to harrass my every edit - I will give up. I suggest people with more experience than I should follow Jza84 because I have been honest in my approach but he has been outwhiting me with experience to rubbish my edits. Dmcm2008 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is open to anyone for editting, however that freedom comes with certain restrictions and responsibilities, some of which you did not comply with on this occation. I did give you a warning that if you engage in edit warring, you may be blocked, and with you breaching this, combined with the number of obscene and pejorative remarks you left prompted me to report you. I believe I was fair and moderate in my approach, having justified my understanding of the content and behavioural dispute. Several other impartial users have also stated either you should apologise, or, they have no problem with me, and I think this is indicative of our seperate approaches.

Remember, blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia and are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Repeatedly undoing edits despite calls for citation as well as being incivil damages Wikipedia and damages relations within the project. I respect that the content means alot to you, but the essay entitled Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot makes clear that we are all here for more or less the same reason and that there is a person at the other end of your conversation. Edit wars and naming calling are counter-productive and make Wikipedia a less pleasant project for everyone.

Wikipedia:Introduction summerises the situation better than I can paraphrase:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers. It is a special type of website, called a wiki, that makes collaboration easy. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly, and repeat offenders can be blocked from editing. If you add new material to Wikipedia, please provide references. Facts that are unreferenced are routinely removed from the encyclopedia.

Again, you seem to insist that your contributions (for "YOUR city") do not require any references for verification and that it is I, holding the site's principles, that is being disruptive. I don't think this is accurate or fair on your part. Wikipedia has developed a body of policies and guidelines to further our goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. This, coupled with objections to your "expansion of Liverpool" has been shared with you here, when you was welcomed. That I follow them, and share this with you is not disruptive, it's best practice.

However, what's done is done. Let's put this behind us and look at a way forwards. I've shared with you a proposal, is there anything you would like to share with me about this? You did not in your last comment and I'm unclear if you agree or disagree and why so. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to undo some of your changes again for the reasons cited above, e.g. this. Please visit WP:UKCITIES on guidelines for appropriate headings and content. I've removed the "District of Liverpool" claim because, simply, Litherland is not a district of Liverpool.

I've offered a compromise above. You have not responded but continued to edit material as you see fit - without citation. We've tried a third opinion, perhaps we ought to get some form of formal mediation if you still feel aggrieved? I feel that my efforts to communicate my objections are now in vain. Hope we can work this out. Happy editting, --Jza84 |  Talk  10:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

due to harrassment by Jza84 I have decided to quite using WP. I hope not all my edits have been in vain as Jza84 has systematically reverted anything I have done. Including Liverpool page and connecting suburbs. I am not interested in his faceless gestapo style editing. I was only ever interested in enhancing wikipedia pages on LIVERPOOL and suburbs. The other user has stopped me from freely editing. I have edited in goodfaith I was never a vandal but this user wants to be funny so let him. Best wishes to all of you except Jza and Kitchen Knife. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Liverpool. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Coldmachine^Talk 12:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comments on User talk:Jza84: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Also your comments on Talk:Liverpool where you said in relation to User:Kitchen Knife and User:Jza84: "How sad a life they must lead." The particular comment in the Falkner Square section of Jza84's talk page that is completely unacceptable is the last sentence: "You need to get a life moron."  DDStretch  (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been notified of your recent engagements with Jza and other editors on Wikipedia, and after looking briefly over your comments and the other that have been made prior or in response to that, I am appalled. You appear to have a sincere lack of respect for other editors and the comments which are being made on both sides aren't conducive to a collegial atmosphere, but even still, there needs to be stability on both sides. By constantly name calling Jza–which violates policy here on Wikipedia– as you did when you attacked him as a moron, not in touch with reality, vain, narrow minded and ignorant, and also the gestapo, the list goes on, your not helping build an encyclopedia. Whilst I am very much against an edit-war, for which both of you were notified (at least to my knowledge), I am also against personal attacks against other editors who are here to help you, not to hinder your expression of knowledge. By continually repeating this behaviour its you who'll look bad in the long run, because people look towards the conduct and responses of editors even though someone else might be involved. I don't want you to get blocked, I don't want to warn you, but I will follow the correct procedure if your conduct is not smartened and you do not refrain from making personal attacks or edit-warring. This is very much unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. I hope to see you in a few months time where you understand policy and work with other editors. Regards, Rudget. 12:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, but even if you what you are saying is true–that being that you wish to expand articles–then there is no need for this form of silly behaviour. It's unncessary and from what I can understand from your message to me just then, not something you should be engaging yourself. You clearly know better than this and hopefully responding to comments where Jza84 (which is a user I've known for about 9-10 months now) has made valuable advice is concerning. I'm not siding with any user, I never do. If you wish to build articles, you can demonstrate it to us, part-and-parcel of this Wikipedia is to build articles with other editors, rarely will you expand another article without someone else editing it. Edit-war means when you undo another users contributions on more than three occasions, it's a blockable offence as you understand. Rudget. 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't come complaining to me about other editors, when you are engaged in an edit war. Several experienced editors have, on this page, requested you behave more acceptably, and I support them. --RFBailey (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer you an olive branch and fresh start between us. Clearly you feel aggrieved moreso at being "bureaucratically processed" rather than having your edits changed. I think the feedback you've recieved is fairly clear-cut, however, no matter how badly I feel treated, I'm not a vindictive user (or person) and think there is still potential in you. However, may I please stress the following points of advice (should you plan to stick around):

• No more personal attacks: If you feel upset about something in an article, don't start name calling, it does nothing other than damage your reputation and genrally makes others upset or angry. Instead work with other users; they may not have all the facts or sources that you have. Wikipedia is built on co-operation, so try to state (calmly) what you think is wrong, why you think it's wrong and what you'd like to see changed. If there's still a dispute, try to consider if the other person has a point, then suggest a compromise and so on and so forth.
• Cite your sources: I can't stress this enough. Without providing reference material, you risk having all your work reverted. Wikipedia has to be built on the basis that anyone can go check facts that are added here, no matter how basic. "Local knowledge" is just not how Wikipedia works. See the policy entitled WP:CITE.
• Co-operate: I don't necessarily mean you must become an emotionless "entity", I'm actually suggesting that it is good to build relationships on the site. Most of the best work on this site is written collaboratively. Perhaps ask for someone to adopt you? -- (see WP:ADOPT).
• Don't worry: You won't get it your own way all the time on Wikipedia. I certainly don't; there are many things I'd like to have changed, but community values or strength has not always been in my favour. If you aren't happy with something, then stay cool. Perhaps try to seek a reference to prove/discredit certain theories? You say you like Liverpool, perhaps buy/lend/obtain a few books about the city, and start adding material with these sources. Remember, there is no deadline.
• WP:UKCITIES: It's a great resource, and a style guide for articles about cities, towns, villages, suburbs, districts or any other settled place in the United Kingdom. Take a flick through for recommended content and headings. I don't think there's a single article about a place on Merseyside that has properly encompassed these recommendations. You could be the first to acheive this!

I really hope to see you around. Though I detest your recent incivility and hostility, I very much admire your passion and enthusiasm and still think there is a good future for you here. With the feedback I've given, coupled with that from other users, I'd like to make bygones-be-bygones and start again. What do you say? --Jza84 |  Talk  03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic. It was never my intention to put you off, and perhaps that's how I came across, but I think we can both see light at the end of the tunnel now!

I think I've said everything I can at this stage, but really would stress WP:UKCITIES as the best resource for writing about settlements in the UK, no matter how large or small, or what its status is. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i noticed you're interested in improving the Liverpool article. I've just fixed a few things but a lot needs to be done, generally adding citations for stuff. If you've got the time to search out good sources and reference them that would be great. The fact that Manchester enjoys featured status and Liverpool doesn't meet good article, let alone featured status, is something that should not continue for much longer! Looking forward to your contributions. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right there are pages that describe these things but i think wikipedia is in desperate need of a good how-to page with the "wiki-code" and short outline on how to use them. Anyway, references generally go like this

• <ref> {{cite web |title= |url=http:// |accessdate=2008-05-03}} </ref>

This is for citing websites. Pick an appropriate title and then put the whole address in. Notice that the accessdate is in american style, that's May 3 not, March 5. Try and make sure it's a good website, say for Vauxhall, Merseyside something like the official council website would be ideal. Referencing books and articles is a little easier:

• <ref> [Name of book, Author, Page number, date of publication] </ref>

(There are styles that people use but as long as the information's there that's most important. Feel free to copy and paste these templates into an article when you're citing. Thats why i have THIS)

About where to put them in: e.g. on Liverpool#Waterfront and docks museums. The second paragraph's "The docks are central to Liverpool's history, ..." could do with a link to an article about the history of docks in Liverpool or something from the maritime museum maybe.

I'm not sure if any of this is helping you but the main problem you have is the articles you're working on desperately need citation unless they'll cause problems. This is because these things regularly change. Wigan-is it in Lancashire/Greater Manchester/Merseyside? It's been all of them at some point in time and in different regional and political ways.

If you can find a good source that backs up exactly what you've added to an article then you'll be fine. Maybe this is getting too involved but if you clash with jza84 again: say on my talk page what it is you're trying to add/remove and i'll take a look. Take care and happy editing! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Judith Ann Hawkins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Toddst1 (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Dmcm2008. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Dmcm2008, glad you're still editing here. To list anyone surname first in categories (such as: [Category:People from Liverpool]) - add the following formatting to the bottom of the page (just above all the categories that are listed on that page):

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hawkins, Judith Ann}}

Hope this helps. Cheers. Snowy 1973 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dmcm2008. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Didn't you see the posts at the Halle Berry talk page or the note I left on Berry's page? Yes, a number of newspaper articles refer to Berry's mother as a "Liverpudlian" and/or state that she was born in Liverpool. But, during her appearance on Inside the Actors Studio on October 29, 2007 ([1], Berry explicitly stated that her mother was born in Ohio (and she went on to say that her grandparents were from Liverpool). Furthermore, the geneaology site Geneaology.com has a profile of Berry [2] which lists her mother as born in Ohio on December 11, 1939.[3] Obviously, there is a conflict of information here, especailly if Berry herself says something other than what some references do. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The geneaology page might not be perfect - but neither are newspaper articles. There appears to be a downloadable version of the Actors Studio episode here - [4]. I don't know why this is a big issue - if there are two conflicting versions of something that probably isn't that important in the first place (her mother's birthplace) - best just to leave it out altogether. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to read WP:Reliable sources for what is or is not a reliable source. Random internet sites are not reliable sources. The one you found [5] looks like a copy of our very own Wikipedia article at one time or another. In fact, I can not really think of what would be a more reliable source than what Berry herself has said on national television. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Greater Liverpool, 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment here, it seems to me that what you are doing is making a case, (unfortunately only based on original research so far as I can see), for a caveat to be placed in the article on Liverpool Urban Area, along the lines that there are differences of views on whether St. Helens should be counted as part of the Liverpool urban area. That seems to be a reasonable point, and if it can be verified from external sources as a locally contentious issue is worthy of a reference. But it doesn't justify a whole new article, especially given that, as others have commented, there are already several articles dealing with different definitions of Liverpool and Merseyside. No-one wants to discourage you from improving articles, quite the reverse, but trying to create new articles which are unnecessary is not the best way forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be right in assuming you are all for the move? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.50.49 (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no user name so I will respond here and yes I am in favour of the move. Arguements against Kirkby are sentimental, and too many of the arguements are flawed. Everton are not mega rich and are being given an opportunity that they would not have at Goodison or anywhere else. Shame there are no closer alternatives like Stanley Park but i've no problem with Kirkby and the motorway and road links are much better than Walton. Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Try and be a bit more careful in your reverts. Here you actually reinstated some vandalism, I understand why though because i guess you misread the edit summary. That piece of vandalism actually sat on the page for three days! Maybe a page lock is in order if we're not doing a good enough job of keeping vandalism out. I personally will keep a tab on the page history for the next week or so. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but at what point do you draw the line? If someone was born in the town, it is easy to decide, but after that it has to be arbitrary. It's not quite the same as Jack Charlton's idea of Irish nationality, so his parents' connection do not really enter into it. Can you devise some rule which we could apply consistently? JMcC (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dmcm2008. Skem is around 14 miles or so from Liverpool so cannot be described as 'on the outskirts' of Liverpool. Somewhere like Huyton better suits this description. As Skem lies within the boundries of West Lancashire and therefore falls under the administrative rule of Preston, including the city most closey associated with the towns county in the artilce intro seems more appropriate. A great many people in Skem share an association with Liverpool, as many parents and grandparents of residents are from there. I live in the Orrell area of Wigan and look forward to working on any articles associated with the areas in an around Wigan with you in the future. Thanks. Man2 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to add more. The association with Liverpool is already mentioned in the Skem article, under the 'New Town' section so does not need to appear in the intro. Thanks. Man2 (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have removed the additions you made to the template. What you did was add another template to the existing one which concerns just what you have called the "Ceremonial county of Merseyside". This will have the effect of adding that new tamplate to every article that calls up the NW England template. It would be wrong: there are parts of NW England which are not in Merseyside. So, it needed to be reverted. You can recreate the template you added on its own page, which would mean that it could be added as required on relevant pages. Make sure you have the best wording for the region the template refers to, however. It may be best to get others who know about that area of country to look it over before going live with it, if you do decide to create it.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any offence I may have caused, it certainly was not intended. Please refer to the Skem discussion page. Thanks. Man2 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for me too. I was under the impression you had said "Skem is on the outskirts of Liverpool" in an article, when infact, you hadn't. My bad call. :-S --Jza84 |  Talk  20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"For Liverpool there are places outside the official boundary that still form part of the city", is not accurate or factual. The "official boundary" is the only boundary - that's the territory that holds City status, and that is the territory that is known, in law and practice, as Liverpool; that's the area under Liverpool City Council and under its Lord Mayor and what the ONS and OS will verify. Any urban (or rural) area outside of that boundary is not part of that city. It may effectively be a suburb of that connurbation, but it isn't in Liverpool. I need to make that crystal clear otherwise there could be confusion made on main article space. It's not a matter of opinion, but hard verifiability. Postcodes, accents and othersuch systems of geographic demarcation do not affect what is and isn't part of Liverpool.

Greater Manchester is a different kind of baby, in that it has official boundaries both in law and in practice, just like Greater London. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live on planet earth thank you. Another outburst of incivility however and I will be forced to take action. Please remember two things a) No personal attacks, and b) Liverpool is Liverpool, not an unpublished "greater" Liverpool. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not from Manchester; I wasn't even born in the North West. Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county, greater Liverpool isn't, that is fundmental to the issue in hand. You're trying to say something along the lines of "Wigan is in Manchester", when the reality is, it isn't. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic how? What do you mean? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the distance to Liverpool per your very own rationale - I thought I was helping you. It is your own unwillingness to assume good faith that is taking the focus off article building and onto character attacks, when really, it's totally uncalled for, and totally unhelpful. You've misinterpretted my actions as bad faith (despite them being constructive edits) - Perhaps it's time for a timeout? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, sleep on it. See how you feel in the morning. I'm here to write an encyclopedia - that's all, and I enjoy it. I think you're a little mixed up, that's for sure, about a whole bunch of things, but really, "long running dispute"? - that's not me, and I'm not interested frankly. If you want to persue this formally, fine, go for it, but don't leave me messages unless its civil and about content, please. :-) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - you may or may not care what I think. But remember, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and (importantly for Liverpool content) WP:V are none-negotiable. Any breach of those and you will be "beaurocratically processed" towards a reduction in editting capability. Let's try to avoid that.

If nothing else, please also indent your comments in future. Your commentary is difficult enough to read without it being in a single block of text. Good luck, and good night. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a new section, not indenting. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope my Wigan comment didn't cause this fracas. The Liverpool problem will always cause tension in the Skelmerdale article because few residents self-identify solely as 'Skemmers', for various reasons. As Frank Riley said, they were (and still are) "People in Need of a Future". We need not follow the law to the letter in wikipedia and i hope we can get consensus for mention of both Liverpool and Preston distances in the article. We are here to write good articles, not to argue over minor differences. What do you guys think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me the right way forwards is/was including Liverpool, Preston and Manchester. It's not a great concern of mine however, if say, we wanted to swap two of those three for Ormskirk and Wigan or even Warrington. I really don't mind, but I thought it appropriate to use the major cities for triangulation. Stretford does something similliar, then (still in its first paragraph) lists a few local towns. Whatever the team fancies going for I'm happy with. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

I writing to you regarding this diff (which, forms part of a series of such messages posted to various users). Although the type of message you left is prohibited, I don't feel the need to retaliate, but rather re-welcome you back into the community. I'm doing this because I think this will be something that will be helpful you. I also believe that is provides evidence that you have been adequately notified about how to behave, and how to work collaboratively without the need to attack others simply because they have concerns about Wikipedia's principles or a different perspective on content issues...

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is strictly prohibited.

Some of Wikipedia's principles are as follows:

	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialised encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory.
	Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
	Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 6,912,446 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

I think the above principles are at-odds with writing from your own perspective (i.e. without source material) about an expanded "cultural/traditional" extent of the Liverpool - something that is close to your heart, but isn't going to be included by attacking other users, or enforcing your views on articles without considering verifiability.

Again Dmcm2008, I wish you no ill-fate; there's no need to be combattative or assume bad faith with me. I'm here to write an encyclopedia - it's my hobby, and I enjoy it. Given the history and the chances, I think if there is a repeat of the cycle though, I will not hesitate to reduce your editting capabilities (I actually have the capability, by way of being an administrator, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt and a chance to help us write a great encyclopedia).

I sincerely hopes this ends any ill feeling and ill conduct and we can get on with improving North West England content rather than breaching editorial norms about an expanded Liverpool. Good luck Dmcm2008. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it may be diffcult for you to understand but when you make an edit your altering other peoples edits, why do you think yours are so important? If you think that the definition of the city region is Mersyside plus Halton then produce a reference for it. What you have described is what the LSC describe as Greater Merseyside both the LSC and Halton web sites back me up. You have this obsession with mentioning Liverpool as often as possible. Wikipedia is not you play pen. Quote references for your edits or stop editing.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like assuming good faith to me. While I agree that Dmcm2008's edits do not take WP:V and other content policies into account, more often than not, it would be more constructive to assist and offer direction and guidance - as some editors have been doing including Jza84 - for however long that takes than telling an editor to "quote references for your edits or stop editing". It's an unhelpful remark, and one made in the face of WP:CIVIL. While Dcmcm2008 has not asked you to strike this from the talk, I am requesting that you do so. Coldmachine^Talk 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no views, other than protect Wikipedia. To be even more frank, if we (the editting community) didn't "undermine" you (as you put), Wikipedia would be saying some rather unhelpful things on its articles. Until there is a fundamental change in your approach here, by way of referencing your additions, I'm certain you will continue to feel undermined for the rest of your usership, simply because users do not want people's unsourced commentary and opinions appearing on the 6th/7th most visited website around.

The problem is now Dmcm2008, I envisage this turning nasty, on your part, which I for one won't appreciate. I've really done everything I can with you, and I think I've been more than accomodating and patient with you - waiting for that spark which makes you realise that you're going to change, and start seeing how to contribute to Wikipedia with references. I think we're each thinking enough is enough, but ultimately its you who has failed to cite your sources and you who has attacked others.

So what happens now Dmcm2008? What do you think I'm doing wrong? And what is it you want out of Wikipedia? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not experienced, then it is your responsibility to get experienced. Wikipedia is written by unpaid volunteers; we all started at some-point, and have all had to find our own way and learn through our own direction and willingness. You've been with us since at least January, and I know I for one have provided several introductions to you for support - you should be a better contributor than you are.

It's not my responsibility to support you, although I have tried, and failed; you're still pushing a POV about Liverpool that was discreditted several months ago. If you want my opinion, I really think you need to go through the Wikipedia adoption process to turn your usership around. I'm hear trying to write great articles, not for having chats in a useless cycle of events that lead to no progress at all. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to stick my nose in briefly, primarily because I've been asked for a third opinion on a couple of occasions by Dcmcm2008 now in relation to Liverpool and similar articles: I also see this as possibly getting out of hand. However, I have to say that none of the editing behaviour of Dcmcm2008 points to deliberate disruption; we still must assume good faith in regards to his/her edits here. Dcmcm2008: I concur, with Jza, that a mentor in the adoption process is a great idea and I'd strongly recommend that you went for that option. Coldmachine^Talk 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the expection of correcting typographical and grammatical errors, please do not revise your comments on talk pages after other users have added replies as you did to Talk:Liverpool_Urban_Area#Greater Liverpool coverage areas, otherwise it appears as though other users have replied to something which did not exist when they made their comment. If you have additional information, please add it as a separate comment.

Also, I have noticed that almost every edit you make on both article and talk pages appears to be marked as minor when this should be reserved for when the edit is actually minor. Some editors choose to filter out minor edits from their watchlists. Paypwip (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  Talk  00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this are deeply offensive and unacceptable. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I just removed a whole bunch of miscatagorisation and what I can only call expansive-Liverpudlian POV that hails from this account, despite the reams and reams of warnings above. I'm past the stage of mentoring and warning now—you've had more than your fair share of chances and I think I've been patient and reasonable—so here's two final conditions for you if you wish to continue contributing in the future:

1. Adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to the letter. No abusive remarks or assumptions of bad faith. Period.

2. Do not state that any locality outside of the official, statutory metropolitan borough of the City of Liverpool is "in Liverpool", or forms a "suburb of Liverpool" or any other such combination of unsourced personal commentary. This includes (for example) putting people from Sefton or Knowsley into a "People from Liverpool" category or equivalent.

I do not expect any restoration of the material I fixed today nor do I expect any other kind of hostilities, to any user, ever again. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:V and WP:CITE are non-negotiable and so either you read these carefully, reflect and reform, or you go away. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Jza84, while I agree with your frustrations here do you believe that you were justified in bringing this block to bear? First of all you have been personally involved in content disputes with this editor, and second of all blocks are not for cooling off which is what this seemed to be here. I wondered if you would consider reviewing the block in light of this? This is in no way about my taking 'sides', or opposing the block: I am merely, and hopefully politely, observing that it may have been a bit hasty and another admin could have been called in to avoid any possible misunderstanding about motivations here. Coldmachine^Talk 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very valid point, and one I did consider prior to making the move, but then again, if you punch a policeman that doesn't mean they can't arrest you (I didn't like that comparison) if you swear at a teacher, that doesn't mean they can't discipline you. However, this wasn't a cool down block, this was a block to cutail imminent and continual distruption and abuse.

However, you say "it may have been a bit hasty" - ? I mean, on the value of facts here, this guy was verifiably warned in March, April and June; I don't see anything "hasty" about a 31 hour block for continued abuse for 9 months. In this capacity, I stand by the block, and would-even will-do it again in the same situation. I don't think my actions were in anyway at odds with standard practice, or our policy WP:BLOCK. I'm here to write articles, not to gaurd them from damage. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you removed my final speech. How sad. So what next? remove this? remove all of my edits ? You have pontificated over my edits in Liverpool and now you accuse me of being an abuser. Your spiel with Kitchen Knife [thus I've given him an ultimatum to change or be managed off Wikipedia outright.

I believe the previous block may have been unjustified given the circumstances in which it was placed, however, your edits to your userspace were and are unhelpful. There are a number of avenues you can take: you could try to rally consensus for changes to articles where you are finding your edits reverted; you could take your issues with Jza84 to WP:ANI and you could also open an RfC on an article to request input from third party and uninvolved editors, or just issue a third opinion request without going down the more formal RfC route. But, I'll reiterate what other editors have told you time and again: additions need to meet the content policies of the project and you are continually adding content which fails to meet those guidelines. I'll list them here, once more, and suggest you read them. It simply isn't enough for you to consider it to be truth (i.e. that you feel you know), it must also meet these criteria:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view
• No original research

In short: if you want to make sure your edits 'stick', then back them up with references and citations. Your 'knowing' it to be true simply isn't enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. Coldmachine^Talk 20:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]