User talk:Robertpbalding

Hello, I'm Fragrant Peony. I noticed that you recently removed content from Burgh St Peter without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Fragrant Peony (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not remove population figures and other information without explaining why, normally we give the most recent data for a parish etc and its fine if it is decades old as long as it is made clear it isn't current, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the links I have removed no longer work and are therefore unverifiable, I have replaced them with links to the same data that still work Robertpbalding (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the links may not be working perhaps temporary (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#VOB privacy error), doesn't mean the links or information should be removed, see WP:DEADREF. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here you stated "No information removed" but the parish population was removed, Rushall parish was merged with Dickleburgh in 1935 and the merged parish was later renamed "Dickleburgh and Rushall" thus the 1931 census data is most relevant for the Dickleburgh article though I have added 2021 census data for the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been using the {{convert}} template on infobox parameters that ask for input is a particular unit (e.g |area_total_km2= ). These generally do conversions automatically. If you use the convert template here, it causes output errors such as here. Please look at the article before you save changes to see that they are correct. This shows errors for area and population density because you did not provide just the area in km2. MB 04:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

okay my mistake. Will do in future Robertpbalding (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Franz Mayer of Munich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rathdrum. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Robertpbalding (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've not time to do anything to work on this yet, but I noticed you've been adding similar sub-heads to articles about places.

I wondered if you'd found WP:UKCITIES which is an invaluable style guide to how to write about them?

In the main I think you're about right in what you're doing. The exception is probably your choice of subheading for "Notable Residents". The guide suggests "Notable people" - I think because it allows us to talk about people associated with the place rather than just people who have lived there. They'll often be the same thing of course. But we would expect to see only the first word of the subheading capitalised - so Notable people, not Notable People.

I don't have an issue with the sections I saw on the church, for example - UKCITIES is a guide and when articles are quite short we need to be creative.

On Geldeston, however, you added a citation needed tag to Dorothy Hodgkin but removed a reference which cites exactly what you're now suggesting needs to be cited! You might want to delve back into the history of the article there. I know she was allowed in to the Leman school in Beccles for a short while as well - not as much as they'd have you believe nowadays perhaps iirc - so I'm sure there's other sources which could be found locally. Might be worth a look. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok, sounds good. Thank you very much for your help Robertpbalding (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]