User talk:Jeremy Bolwell

Welcome!

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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)

Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester

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)

Distances in km please

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)

Canals of Great Britain

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)

Monmouthshire geo stubs

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)

References

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)

PS - apologies for mistakenly "vandalising" your user page just now - my fault entirely, sorry.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of Jane Austen

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)

Geograph photos

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)

Linking dates...

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)

And the same in Stony Stratford. Please re-read WP:DATE. (but correct link for River Ouse was valid and welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And the same for Berkswell. I also removed superfluous links that you added. - Erebus555 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Horton Point (horse)

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)

Please keep to conventions on page

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)

Wales dates

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)

Linking

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)

You're still inserting multiples links for the same terms - and for some very basic terms in Royal Marines. We really don't need multiple links for Royal Navy and each fo the commandos. David Underdown (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, please remember that things only need to be linked once in an article, and basic concepts do not need to be linked at all. David Underdown (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Visitor attractions in Wales

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)

Huddersfield

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)

Vandalism

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)

Advice

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)

Potential pub task force!

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)

Piping links

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)

Ta GH - I had been wondering how to do that - natty. Now I know, simple when you do.Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cistercian Way (Wales)

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)

Both are great subjects. Keep up the good work. ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 05:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cwmystwyth

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 - that edit was unintentional, I think it must have happened when Wikipedia was on a read only mode and I must have hit the wrong button just prior or just after. Sorry! I see its back there as it should be. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy. Sounds like a Wiki "senior moment" of which I've had a few =;-D Thanks for the reply & cheers! ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 12:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

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)

X Factor

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)

It aint my contribution - sorry. Shurely shome mishtake. I did wonder about it when I first saw it but moved on.Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Thought it was your edit, even though I thought it a bit unlikely. Turns out it was unattributed. It's now been removed. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ ^talk 19:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dai Dower

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)

Yes I agree - Ive amended it with a better word - selected. I think its better now. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 11:15, 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)

Hi Jongleur - Fair point - I was researching them with a view to seeing if they can be wikified, but got sidetracked Im afraid. Give me a bit of time and I will re-visit this. Thanks for the nudge. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, I've done it for you. Cheers, ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 11:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes - sketchy is the word, little detail on such men, although its only barely 50 yrs. Obliged Jonegleur anyway. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Place definition

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:

• "Watford is a town and district in Hertfordshire, England"
• "Lincoln, Lincolnshire is a cathedral city and county town of Lincolnshire, England"
• "Dover is a town and major ferry port in the county of Kent, England"
• "Alnwick is a small market town in north Northumberland, in the north-east of England"

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)

Why dont we resolve this issue with placename, county, Region then country? Seems logical - Wales is big and many people outside Wales are gobsmackingly ignorant of where places are - anything that easily helps them while complying with guidelines is welcome. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the ignorance! But that's why I use the terms "north-east Wales", "north west Wales" to pinpoint the place more precisely. Having been a teacher for 30 years, I believe we need to educate and not "dumb-down". Don't you think that "Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, South Wales, Wales" is a bit "over-the-top". And, referring to the English examples I gave above, I believe tha what's good enough for England is good enough for Wales. -- Maelor  13:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the articles need to be linkable to already extant articles for North Wales, South Wales, Mid Wales etc - simplfying 'north east Wales' to North Wales isnt necessarily dumbing down - the example for Abergavenny that you offer is not I believe at least OTT - it may help a Bristolian planning walking holiday in the Brecon Beacons (off the top of may head) who doesnt want to drive to Mid Wales. I think we need better, mre comprehensive and thought-through examples thn any English article, dont you? (!!) Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that the geo-coordinate link at the top of the Brecon Beacons page would suffice? How more precise details do you need? -- Maelor  14:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The geo-co-ord link helps, but do you use them? Lincoln, Lincolnshire East Midlands would be better than just county Dover, Kent, South East England also better etc. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly but you simply cannot make that decision unilaterally! You need to get a consensus of other users first. -- Maelor  14:30, 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)

As far as I can see, the naming convention only relates to the naming of counties rather than countries. I must say that I'm with Maelor on this. Although people use the north Wales and south Wales, it's ver y vague as everyone's perception of where on begins is different.

Lincoln, Lincolnshire East Midlands would be better

I don't see how. In the case of Ruthin, Denbighshire, north Wales - if I knew were Wales was, but little else, I'd click on Denbighshire, which would show it's location in northeast Wales. If I didn't know where Wales was, then clicking on the article about Wales would be more useful, than a vague article about a made up region. Creating a link to North Wales will only add to the ignorance!--Rhyswynne (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in on someone else's conversation, but I'd like to have my tuppence worth. The problem here is that the people who live in the southern part of Wales identify very srongly with the area. They call it 'South Wales' with an implied capital letter, and use this to describe where they live. I have yet to hear an Englishman say that he comes from 'South East England' or 'Northern England' - they use the county they come from, e.g Kent or Yorkshire. For some time now I have been trying to persuade my favourite newspaper to mention the names of Welsh counties when they are talking about towns and villages, but they religiously stick to 'Blackwood, South Wales' or similar. This is what makes 'South Wales' as a geographical description almost unique. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ ^talk 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jongleur100 does make a valid point in relation to the Valleys area, because although most of the industrial area was in Glamorgan it did extend into other counties such as Monmouthshire, and the general term "South Wales" is indeed commonly used. And "Glamorgan" has not existed in local government terms since the 1970s. But on balance I think that the need for conformity outweighs this, and certainly there is absolutely no need for putting in both counties and regional descriptions. In my view there is often far too much unnecessary linking of words to other articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruthin

Jeremy take care. You just deleted the Ruthin article???? -- Maelor  14:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Slip trying to edit. Not intentional! Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking

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)

Yes I know the argument - we all know what they are. However when I've looked at those articles it opens up sand's constituents, uses, hazards and links on to fascinating articles on sandstorms etc. Hill likewise as defined, as opposed to mountain. Park the same. Beach a geographical term and again tons of info. This is an encyclopedia - and I picture a 10 yr old delving into this aladdins cave of facts and surfing back and forward. If I'm learning then I expect that kid is too. Someone like you or me has taken the time and trouble to create these apparently banal articles - but they never are when you burrow in. Hence me doffing my cap to these little helpful articles and their creators. IT SPOILS THE TEXT. Thats not my personal opinion. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the Anon edit above - this edit to Mallwyd introduced a number of unnecessary links, against WIkipedia's style guidelines. See WP:Overlinking. Most people know what a village or a pub are, and there is a search box for those who feel the need to find out more. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You know what a pub is, but without the link you dont what other people think do you - and thats the point. Linking is the Unique Selling Point of THIS form of encylopedia - if you dont want to click the link dont, but dont assume no one else will! All a link does is change black 'ink' to blue - when Wikipedia is perfected we can address the semantics but when articles vary in quality so much lets get some editing done. Thanks for your input though. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, overlinking is one of the Style guidelines, i.e. a guide that has evolved over time and become accepted methods of editing by general consensus of many editors. You may have a different opinion (and there are some guidelines and policies that I don't like either), but that is not a good reason to break them, especially to change an article that already conforms to the guidelines. Please stop. You have already been warned about this, and if you continue to carry on, I will have to consider your actions as vandalism and take appropriate action. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

10 minutes in and straight to a threat. How positive. Easy to defend against. Go and bully a real vandal.Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am only repeating the warnings you have already been given, and you have continued to ignore. Please take note of them - they are given for your benefit. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice - duly noted. Why not 'get to know me', look at my work and support me? We may share many interests and can contribute to Wikipedia positively. We have a difference of opinion, style and content perspectives etc - hardly insurmountable stances with no room for compromise. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 12:03, 29 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)

Hi Jeremy, I came to your page because I read the section on the Administrators' noticeboard. This is just a friendly suggestion to look over the Wikipedia: Overlinking guide, where you can get an idea of the types of things we like to link and prefer not to link. I don't think anyone is threatening you, but please understand that if you choose to ignore the guideline on linking, somebody may take your actions as vandalism and block you. This is not a reflection on you; we just have established ways of doing things. If you disagree with the current guideline, you can always start a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context talk page.

I've looked over some of your contributions, and would agree that in some cases you have probably linked more than strictly necessary. Less is often more with linking, and many people find links annoying when reading articles, so we try to keep them to a minimum while still providing quick access to related content. Hope you enjoy working on Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I please ask you one final time to stop adding unnecessary links to articles, as you did here. Your attention has been draw to the relevant guidelines - please use them. Words like hill, mountain, village etc. do not need links. I don't want to have to take further action, but if you continue to ignore the advice you have been given by me and other editors, you will leave me no other choice. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:26, 1 September 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)

Without wishing to appear like we're piling on, I'd like to clarify that, good intentions or not, persisting in overlinking will result in a block. That you've been given an extraordinary degree of latitude is a reflection on both the value of your contributions and, I think, the patience of the community. However, there is a limit. Therefore, please take this as a friendly, but serious, warning: please stop overlinking. Your concerns seem quite reasonable; nevertheless, like everyone else, you need to follow the guideline. If you would like to propose changes to our existing guideline, you may do so at talk:Overlinking. This will (1) save the community time as we won't have to continue posting about it on your talk page; (2) save other editors time as they won't have to remove your overlinks; and (3) prevent you from being blocked. Thanks, Exploding Boy (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read with interest the overlinking guidelines and tried to take on board the comments above - from all sources. I can see the real logic in the linking guidelines - even though they 'cramp my style' - and I naturally always bend rules in most contexts, believing rules are 'for the guidance of wise men...' etc. I feel that Tivedshambo / Pek the penguin has used my linking hill, village etc, overlinking in his perception, as an excuse to bully me off 'his' articles and geographic area in a very immature way, rather like the largest toddler in the playpen and to threaten blocking (surely a last resort reaction and best deployed on genuine vandals at the very least) shows that he certainly doesnt have the interest of Wikipedia, his geographical 'heartland', his own areas of interest, the articles he has worked on or the valuable time of other editors at heart.

This is my offer - I will follow the guidelines on over linking, which I can see will benefit me and upgrade my work. After all I think that we all often see editors squabbling over petty territorial issues - to the detriment of many articles, regions and subjects etc and that needs to be addressed or normal, healthy editors will be driven off Wikipedia and it could be held up to ridicule. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bending the rules is quite permissible, both by the overlinking guideline and by WP:IAR. The way to avoid becoming embroiled in petty squabbles by people who feel they own articles is to discuss proposed changes on article talk pages. By gaining consensus the issue will often disappear, or it will turn out that editors actually agree with each other (shocking, I know). If you feel you are being bullied by editors who just want the whole playground for themselves, then there are other remedies. I'm not sure there's any way to eradicate that particular problem over the entire encyclopedia, unfortunately. Happy editing. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Block notification

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated violation of WP:Overlinking. 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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)

Check out my most recent edits. I had just taken on board the points you made - but you blocked me anyway. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See [1] - links to common words like ducks and lakes do not improve the article. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An article in that context about a country park mentioning how it was improved with the addition of the lake which attracted ducks - seems ok to me. What about in the same article me making Thomas Telford and Ellesmere canal linkable or introducing some additional photos through the geograph link? Or the welsh coal mines link? Or have you decided this isnt a two way street? Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well Ive got other things to do! Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If I could butt in here! I've just spotted this block while adding another comment to the page. Isn't this a bit harsh??? I've just looked through Jeremy's last few edits and can see nothing wrong! The internal links he placed in the Moss Valley, Wrexham article were essential (and something I'd missed!). I agree that some of the earlier edits were a bit over-the-top but that has now stopped! I think someone is making mountains out of molehills here? -- Maelor  20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) The question you need to ask yourself is this: Would an average person know what is meant by the word or phrase I'm linking? The Thomas Telford and Ellesmere canal examples you gave are good links as a lot of people would not be aware of what these are. Words like ducks, lakes, etc, are words learnt in childhood, and therefore not required. May I suggest that you consider making other edits, like writing new text, rather than placing [[ and ]] round existing words. If you agree to do this, I'll be happy to remove your block. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This block is grossly unfair in my view. Jeremy has now agreed to keep his linking within limits, and the fact that his limits are different to those of Tivedshambo is no justification for the harsh punishment of a block. This is not "vandalism", just a legitimate variation in the interpretation of a guideline (not a policy). The block should be withdrawn and Tivedshambo should consider whether, in this case, his/her actions have been proportionate. Jeremy - don't be put off by this, and come back soon. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Issue raised here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:23, 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)

Morning all - just the outcome needed to settle things and what I anticpated waking up to - thanks. I think the block unfair, premeditated and overkill - however its good to know that blocking can be done and it will insure that I really take on board my new editing style. However bear with me it wont be perfect overnight. I obviously edit in good faith and no harm is done. I hope this is a new start. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Geograph links

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]

• 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]

• Photos of Pontfadog and surrounding area on Geograph

I think it look tidier. What do you think?  Maelor  20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maelor - if you say so! Easily done. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Geograph links are unnecessary on articles with coordinates; the page linked to by the coordinates includes a link to Geograph. Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andy - I didnt actually know that - thanks. I followed the geo co-ordinates for a few of the articles I have recently added geograph links to and 1) found I had to search to locate the geograph link amongst a heck of a lot of other data 2) the geograph photos needed a few extra clicks to be brought up 3) the photos that came up were fewer in number and basically not as good as from an explicit geograph link (in a different format, fewer, lacking the scope of the more direct link). I will give this some thought but my initial reaction is to persist with an external link to geograph for the reasons stated. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly bothered, but I think you will find other editors will remove such links, I suggest you check the relevant policy. If ether is a problem with the images found by the auto-generated links, please report that at Template talk:GeoTemplate. Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pound (village)

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)

Yeah looks like a very useful article could be worked in tracking down extant pounds and their village / locations. I have seen many out and about, most in good nick, and could be an interesting project. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir Trefor Williams

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)

Your interest is most welcome and Im sure we can lift the article as it stands by these means, that book sounds very useful, any formatting changes carry on, your very welcome. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There were a handful of existing redlinks to him as Sir Trevor Williams, 1st Baronet, so I've made a redirect from that to your new article for now. So that's another alternative article title. Redirects needed from all other possibilities, of course! PamD (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And I'd have thought, like Ghmyrtle, that we should drop the "Sir"... till I look at Category:Baronets, where it seems to be standard! So I'd propose Sir Trevor Williams, 1st Baronet as the article title. PamD (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The guidance here suggests that, as he was a hereditary baronet (and contrary to what I wrote before) the title should indeed be as PamD suggests. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have requested at WP:RM that this article be moved to Sir Trevor Williams, 1st Baronet. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes a pic would help. But may prove difficult to say the least. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Likewise PamD very thoughtful additions and links, much appreciated. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There's mention of the baronetcy at Williams Baronets, with scope for some succession boxes for baronet and MPx2 with info from Monmouthshire (UK Parliament constituency) and Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency). PamD (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And for "how to do succession boxes"... have a look at Charles Somerset, Marquess of Worcester, and nick the relevant bits of code from that one! PamD (talk) 08:08, 1 October 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)

A pic of the man himself would be a great coup. Article impressive now I must say. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice article, but shouldn't the Monmouthshire link be to the modern county rather than the historic one? Cheers. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 09:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jongleur - thanks for the input. My initial reaction is that it should be the historic county. But what do others think? Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jeremy. The modern county is really no more than an administrative entity - but I'm not too bothered either way. Is there any guidance on this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well when referring to e.g. someone's place of birth we are advised to use the name of the country as it was at the time the person was born I believe. This would seem to be a similar sort of idea. We are talking about Monmouthshire as it was in Williams's time, so it would seem to be appropriate to use the article on the historic entity - just as you've been careful to talk about the correct parliamentary constituency, rather than the later one sharing the same name. David Underdown (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy to go along with that. It was more in the nature of an enquiry really, as there seems to be a certain amount of confusion on the subject, with pages like William Ouseley (born in 1769) linking to the new county. Life would have been a lot simpler though if they hadn't named the new county 'Monmouthshire'. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

Inconsistency abounds. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jeremy - we'll wait and see whether Sir Trevor appears in "Did You Know" in the next couple of days. Re the White Hart, almost all the info I added came from this article - amazing what you can find when you look for it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes the White Hart pub article - one I stumbled across when seeking an article about white harts as in deer - however I never made the connection, mind running on a different track, amazing what you miss when its staring you in the face! I look forward to the DYK sit. Great to see any Monmouthshire articles coming on, the area is a rich vein for those who know it well. More strength to your elbow and your synapses. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There were loads of Morgans involved in Monmouthshire - the book by Jeremy Knight I mentioned above lists 28 different Morgans in the index (of which 6 were named Thomas, and 6 William) - not to mention all the Herberts (18 of them), Lewises (just 11), Vaughans, Pritchards, etc etc. One day I hope to make sense of it all - good luck if you're trying to as well! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hint

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)

By all means do so - I was over keen on inline external refs at the point I was involved with the Crickhowell article. I agree now that the geograph photos are best used in an external link. Nice of you to contact me and feel free! Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir Trevor Williams, 1st Baronet

On 8 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir Trevor Williams, 1st Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, team! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! ∞☼Geaugagrrl^(T)/_(C) 05:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Croft Castle

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 Geaugagrrl - Yes I have done a bit on Croft Castle - lovely spot - always interested in more info so thanks for that, very interesting article / man, many thanks. All grist to my mill. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 08:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tithe Barn

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 Rod - Yes sorry to remove it - reasons being 1) the Som Rural Life Museum article didnt link to tithe barn and doesnt refer to the specific word tithe barn in the body of the article or title 2) it actually appears to have been / be an 'Abbey barn' (see guidance that someone has added in the body of the article edit page) 3) it doesnt have an article about the barn (construction, history, dating, features, current use etc), or feature it within any other article and there are no photos or external link showing the barn. Main killers being that its an Abbey barn and doesnt link to tithe barn. Of course come back if Im mistaken on any of these criteria. Good article etc. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure not linking to the "Tithe barn" article is reason to exclude it from the list (NB it does link now). The English Heritage citation refers to it as a "Abbey Tithe Barn" & I can't find the info on the difference you mention. The date of construction etc can not be more specific than 14th century. There is a photo of the exterior in the infobox - having visited the museum taking a better shot is difficult because of the surrounding trees - but I can go back & try again (in winter with less leaves) if you think that would be helpful. Basically what is the difference between an "Abbey Barn" and a "Tithe Barn"?— Rod ^talk 11:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rod - well if it didnt link as a tithe barn and is / was an abbey barn then I dont think it should be listed. My understanding is that an abbey barn tithed produce for the abbey and a tithe barn as in estate, village or area tithe barn stored tithes for that village, estate, community in hard times or as surplus. The Somerset Rural Life Museum is a museum - we could compromise and list it under 'See also' - but the SRLM article should emphasise that its an abbey barn rather then a straight tithe barn. The only other compromise is to put together an article on 'abbey barn' and sort out the distinctions, linking them. Fancy taking that on?? With me? I am no expert on tithe barns or abbey barns - my stance is just to keep the tithe barn article valid, wikified and prevent it desending into a jumbled list of places that had or have 'a barn' in them (which was the way it was heading). Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got the motivation for abbey barn or to worry about it more - but you might find an article about the Tithe Barn, Pilton at some point.— Rod ^talk 12:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Seen the article - its an abbey barn but good work. Nice article, nice photo, well done Rod. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Worcestershire

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)

Elmley Castle

. --Kudpung (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Holt

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

RGS Worcester and The Alice Ottley School

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)

Isle of Anglesey

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)

As you can maybe see I have a history of overlinking and am therefore very aware of the issue and try to control the tendency - however the example you cite here regarding coins v. Roman currency I feel rather supports MY case - WE cant assume any other reader knows all about Roman currency and the link is in the history section of the Anglesey article. Why dont we let others decide? My view is Wikipedia is ALL about the links, otherwise it may as well be printed as a traditional encylopedia...I prefer blue to black beacuse I learn more from the blue than the black....Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears from your Talk page that others have already decided in the past. That is why you were blocked for a period, and there have been numerous complaints about overlinking by yourself. The problem with overlinking is that the links that are important get lost in a morass of blue ink. Rather than encouraging readers to explore the links it discourages them. It's something I have been guilty of myself in the past and, when I looked again at what I had done I had to admit I was wrong. Sometimes, when the whole world has one view and you are a lone voice crying out against the rest, it is because you are wrong. Not always, but sometimes.

The example of "Roman coins", which I had picked more or less at random from your edits, is a prime example. The Manual of Style set out at Wikipedia:Linking specifically states "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link plain English words and terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia". In this particular case, having already linked in the section to Roman Empire (twice), Roman Governor, Roman Britain, Roman road and Roman Wales, the average reader should be able to work out that the coins may be currency issued by the Romans. However, you then go on to link to Roman withdrawal from Britain and Sub-Roman Britain as well. Come on, lad, it's becoming an obsession!

Even worse than the Roman thing is the later link you introduced for "good defensive position". A link to a page that discusses the strategic positioning of a castle or capital city I could understand. I might still think it was over the top, but I could understand it. Your link to Wales in the Early Middle Ages is just mind boggling. There is nothing on that page that even mentions the Isle of Anglesey, let alone discusses whether it was a good defensive position. Indeed, the only mention of defence is a vague reference that hill-forts may possibly have been reoccupied as a defensive measure against some unknown attacker. For heaven's sake, get a grip! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You DO have a point - if not very well made - I sometimes edit when tired etc never a good idea...Feel free to make the changes you deem appropriate. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well it was getting pretty late when I wrote the above - and, having spent ages on it I managed to lose it before saving and had to cobble it together again! Sorry about that. I wasn't, unlike some of the editors who have tackled you in the past, trying to be prescriptive when I contacted you. I was simply suggesting you have another look at it and review whether all the links were appropriate. I personally think that's a better way than have someone come crashing in and make a pile of alterations. I often find that edits I've made need tweaking when I look at them a couple of days later: they seemed brilliant at the time, but when you read them through you think "hmm, that could be worded better" or "do I really need to link to that?" or even "did I really write that?" My rant above is a prime example ;-). All I am suggesting is that you have another look at it and see what you think is appropriate. If I hadn't seem some merit to your edits, I would have simply reverted the lot! Skinsmoke (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pershore

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)

Evesham

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)

Coalworker's pneumoconiosis

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)

Further overlinking reverted

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)

• Have you READ the woolen article?? How is it not relevant to a mention of the woolen industry in Kettering's history section?? Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Mr Bolwell, this is the crux of the matter:

• In the same way, have your READ the articles: railways, 19th century, engineering, clothing et al., all taken from the fifth sentence of the Kettering article. All of these are 'relevant' in your sense of the word, but do you propose to wikilink these words as well? In fact, if we took your approach to its logical conclusion, we would be linking every word, apart from, possibly, conjunctions, prepositions and pronouns. Can you not see that such an approach is completely unworkable.

Fortnum (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Kettering article

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)

• My block was repealed. Relax. Be positive. Contribute. Have fun. BTW Woolen does enrich in my opinion...Thanks though for your thoughts. You reverted some good linking I feel. Already others feel the same. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• I link for the sort of reader who does not know what elucidate means. Nor uses it in conversation hahahhaha! Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fortnum and feel that your penchant for overlinking is not always as constructive as you intend. I also feel that where it concerns specific articles, you may wish to explain your action on the articles' talk pages for the benefit of other regular editors and contributors. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I do intend it to be constructive - its a stylistic difference of opinion at the end of the day. Im just asking for wider opinions than Fortnums own. Fortnum hampers. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, you do appear to get a lot of comments about your editing. If you have specialised interest in the articles concerned, you are of course more than welcome to comment on the articles' talk pages, or to join the articles' projects. You can be sure that your views and suggestions will be taken seriously and discussed by the other members.--Kudpung (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ive seen some comments about yours too Kudpong. Not all positive. If you READ mine with a less selective and jaundiced eye youd see that I have been justified and ready to accept compromise, friendly comments and positive outcomes. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this overlinking.

Dear Jeremy,

I haven't heard 'Fortnum Hampers' since I was about eleven. It wasn't funny then.

Ah, bless.Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Fortnum - Several indicators clearly indicate to me that your prime motivation ISNT the improvement of the Kettering article : your carte blanche reverting of ALL my edits, including constructive edits in the Early History section such as the addition of Old English to the placename section, hillfort and excavations and the fact that your reversion STILL left 'red ink' links such as the very poor Early Decorated instead of Decorated, the sad Newlands shopping centre and the floating irrelevance of Newton Rebellion. There are others. I even think Pedestrian zone added to a photo of Ketterings enlightening high street as the articles first image all helps a slightly drab and neglected article. I think you are one of those touchy territorial editors who only ever over-react to a new editor on the block - in my experience they all adopt similar, simple and immature tactics : trashing and dissing some helpful edits and focusing on one or two questionable ones which they use to squeal about MY 'overlinking' like an only child in the sandpit when asked to share by a responsible adult.

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)

Reply to Mr Bolwell

Dear Mr Bolwell,

• • "I think you are one of those touchy territorial editors who only ever over-react to a new editor on the block - in my experience they all adopt similar, simple and immature tactics : trashing and dissing some helpful edits and focusing on one or two questionable ones which they use to squeal about MY 'overlinking' like an only child in the sandpit when asked to share by a responsible adult."

This silly rant is neither helpful nor appropriate. Please moderate your language.

It is clear that you have been warned, warned and warned about overlinking. There have been many other editors who have agreed that your overlinking is concerning, to say the least. I have politely asked you to stop what you have already, frequently been asked to stop, only to be met with a rant including 'half-cocked...child in sandpit, immature tactics...etc'. Both the irony, and the fact that you are unable to communicate or reply civilly to a perfect reasonable and oft-quoted request is regrettable. I note with concern that you mention that 'you have been in these wrangles before and won'. Notwithstanding the fact that a edit block can hardly be considered as 'winning' (whether or not that block's duration was subsequently reduced), it is concerning that you see anything as 'winning'. No-one is trying to 'win' anything, and the assertion seems most odd to me. The 'let's be friends mate' comment after the rest of the insulting comments is rather like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, non?

Given the above incivility (please see WP:CIVIL if you are in any doubt), the continued overlinking in clear contravention of WP:OVERLINK despite repeated requests to stop and general aggressive and non-coöperational attitude lead me to think gaining the consensus of other editors and administrators as to your actions is worthwhile. I shall thus post at WP:ANI and consult other editors with whom, I understand, you have had somewhat unfortunate 'wrangles'.

Regards,

Fortnum (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Poor thought-numb. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, we know that you disagree with some of the guidelines at WP:LINKS. But that is becoming a side issue. As an "ally" in much of your work here, I urge you to avoid further blocks, step back for a day or two, don't make any more personal attacks like those above, and then concentrate on what you do best, which is improving articles - so far as possible, taking account of what is the majority view here on formatting. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, please take note of Ghmyrtle's comments above and please try to keep your comments objective and factual, especially regarding my own editing. Your current style of editing, however well intended, will eventually result in you being blocked by uninvolved maintenance administrators who are following these discussions and warnings. --Kudpung (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have decided it best not to escalate the matter to WP:ANI at the moment. However, please take note of my comments, and those of other editors above. I would also emphatically request you not to make personal attacks (yet again) on me as per WP:CIVIL: it is quite unnecessary, and does little to strengthen any argument you may have. I would also point you towards my answer above to the initial thread, entitled 'Mr Bolwell, this is the crux of the matter'.--Fortnum (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly take note of GH's comments above - and Im pleased to see a more conciliatory tone and stance from you Fortnum. I welcome that. Its personal to discard sound edits, adopt a 'traffic warden' attitude to edits from others, and you arent escalating because you dont have a case ; my edits arent vandalism and its arguable that they are in fact overlinking. Editors like you rile me up and I feel you sour things with a toxic pettiness that is the opposite of what Wiki basically amounts to. So all I would say in conclusion is lets co-operate, share and learn from each other and keep improving articles. I dont mean anything personal as I dont know you - if I did no doubt we would find that what we have in common far outweighs passing differences - so leta all move on. Thanks for all your input. Its been a blast. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be warned before you will understand a simple concept? You are still being uncivil and offensive, despite being warned and asked not to be, by both me and others. Why do you feel the need to do that? I am not 'not escalating because I don't have a case'. I am not escalating as I think (just, still) that you have worthwhile contributions to make, and you are misguided, rather than downright malicious. This latest outburst makes me think otherwise. Please, please: learn to be more civil. These silly childish sniping comments help no-one, and make you a very difficult person to work with. I must ask you, yet again, to moderate your language. We will 'move on', as you put it, once you begin to understand the problem(s) which you have been causing: the overlinking seems to be being overtaken by downright rudeness and hostility. Maybe, were you to address both of these issues, we might all get along a lot better Although I have been most forgiving of your constant incivility (again, out of an assumption of good faith (!), I will not let it continue ad infinitum.--Fortnum (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Where I tend towards overlinking I may need support, guidance and examples - Im prepared to temper my tendencies and move on taking the positives with me. I really suggest that you do the same - Im all for meeting halfway. Perspective please. Jeremy Bolwell (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Perspective is hardly the issue here. The issue has been your constant overlinking of articles (difficult to remember that that was the original matter at hand, I know). A simple request by me and other to desist from overlinking has escalated into several outbursts from you, all of which offensive and, frankly, baffling. The comments you write after being addressed by both me and other editors seem to complete miss the point, and are written in a most peculiar style. We are not 'meeting halfway'. We will be 'meeting' no-where. Only when you learn to stop overlinking articles (it's something, at least, that you've accepted that you might need support and guidance in this: you might like to review my comment earlier in your talkpage (I have suggested this already...)), and you become rather more civil in your nature will we be 'moving on'. I doubt very much indeed whether you would conduct yourself like this in the real world, or at least I would hope you wouldn't. This might be something to bear in mind. Do as you would be done by.--Fortnum (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, Many of your edits are excellent and needed, but overlinking has been explained to you many times by no less than fourteen different editors (all with a 'jaundiced eye'?) including a ban a year ago. It is therefore, in my humble opinion, not befitting that after 2 years activity on Wikipedia you should still be claiming beginner innocence for your well intended but erroneous editing policy. To reduce your comments to a level of incivility when it is pointed out to you yet again is also inappropriate, as is also to defend your persistent overlinking by falsly accusing other members of being criticised by others for poor editing. We are all volunteers here and have nothing to gain by working on the Wikipedia - please check out the guideline links in the welcome message at the top of this page and try to maintain a happy community environment.--Kudpung (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Small finds

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)

Fowling

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)

Pontesbury

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)

Shelsley Walsh

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)

Ashley Blake

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)

St David's Hall

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)

Max Wall

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)

Pound (village)

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)

Overlinking

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)

Proposed deletion of Llandenny

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

Article about a village that is unlikely to expand beyond a stub.

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)

You are now a Reviewer

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)

Worcestershire

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)

Gentry

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)