User talk:Exnihilox

Rochdale

can you please stop adding LARGE to the lead when I have already explained in edit summaries and your quite clearly ignoring them. If this continues I'll take the issue to the admin noticeboard. It's subjective large is and if it carries on. I'll open a discussion as said on noticeboard and the article talkpage. Please stop this or i will take action about it. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

With respect are you sure you have the correct person? I have no clue what you are referring to - kindly explain and we can see if you are talking to the correct person - thanks Exnihilox (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

[1] and [2]. Your name features a lot here. I'm not undoing your edits at all but the lead summary and slight removal of long established content won't go without first being challenged. Plus your recent population stats are for the borough and not the town itself. The borough is 223k+ whereas Rochdale is 107k+. There's a massive gap there and you don't appear to have checked the population first by seeing if it meant the town or borough. So yeah I have the right editor as these edits don't lie DragonofBatley (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the lead was the worst part to be candid - I note the poor use of paragraphs - your thoughts? Also the name etiology was a big ramble. I do think the population data seems large - but it was cited. A paragraph encapsulates a string of thought and then you end it - with a blank line - why all the big blocks of text - it is really hard to read? You can cite as a hyperlink or is that in violation of something. Too many hyperlinks and citation links are hard to work with - chose the most credible. I do think my changes are required and the opening part is likely the poorest grammatical structure in the whole article. I do apologize for my - pushing change - but I do hope you will process what I was trying to achieve - yes/no?

Cheers - Dr, Bryan Kelly - PhD, CSci, FRSC Exnihilox (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the population clarity - it seemed very odd. Perhaps adding both numbers is not a bad idea -thoughts? A lot of this is really writing style. Not content or even structure. Not sure about the anti-American sentiment expressed by Pam. There is data about modern Rochdale and the kinds of industries that exist there now - this is worth assessment/evaluation and addition someplace - yes/no? Exnihilox (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you are now collaborating with me rather than a displaced tirade - my intention was certainly not to offend anyone. Exnihilox (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If you can provide the specifics - I can evaluate what you are referring to - Exnihilox (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to propose/see a enhanced section on education and Rochdale. Perhaps a history of schools and changing standards since 1900 or some such - this topic is near and dear to my heart - and it really has no detail/context other than the mentioning of schools - I think the changes in Rochdale's education system add context to this article. Child labor in Rochdale is also another proposed issue - lots of noise about how wonderful the place is - how about a balanced section talking about the use of child labor in Mr. Bright's mills??? Exnihilox (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Population

I think the reason the population figure has become so contentious is because this article is about the town not the borough. There is an even worse article about Rochdale Borough Council which could be greatly expanded to include borough-wide statistics. When writing Wikipedia articles the lead should summarize the content so best left to last. Wikipedia:UKTOWNS is a tried and tested formula for writing about settlements and if you intend to continue is worth reading. Wikipedia also requires citations. WP:Inline citation. Hope this is helpful. Esemgee (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree - I think the stub article is really even worse. Though as to the population figure - I think the way the government data from the 2021 census was presented - is likely a bigger issue. In full disclosure I just wanted to add the 2021 town data - and remove some of the name origin rambling - but got sucked in. I do not think anyone could find it. If you run any internet query - ROCHDALE is presented as the borough - and really it gets a little silly to try and really differentiate - I lived there and most of the wards now defined - were locally just referred to as Rochdale. IF YOU CAN FIND ANY SPEIFIC DATA ON THE TOWN POPULATION IN 2021 - I'm happy to try and clean this up... Exnihilox (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference guidance - I did read this - obviously I am a new Wikipedia editor - likely should be more cautious - the bigger topic of who is the lead for key content - is not clear to me. I can certainly add appropriate and robust citations - I had been using external hyperlinks. Many thanks for the advice. Exnihilox (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make it clear, the "Lead" is the introductory paragraph. If the latest available data is the 2011 figure then it isn't acceptable to use data that refers to something else however frustrating that may be. Esemgee (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ha - understood. I have reached a compromise - adding language that clarifies that official data referring to this town - in reality talks about the borough. I have to think there are many articles that fall into this category. I think I will leave it as is. At some future point the town - borough articles could be pulled together. Thanks for the info. Exnihilox (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Inline links

Do not use inline links in Wikipedia articles. If you need to refer to an external source then add it as a reference using the appropriate {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, etc. template. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Can do - plan to add such references - thanks. Exnihilox (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I see no current inline links, further I see new robust links to credible data source to all of the content that I added.

With respect, I think one might generally consider your word choice when offering such commentary - as a totally neutral reader of the comment you left, it might be better to rally soften the comment and down tone the stridency. I am simply attempting to convey something constructive that will help you to better help newcomers to this data system. I trust you take this comment constructively - as that is my intention - many thanks for your assistance in such matters - I did take note of your prior comment to an 'Admin' and furth his response - Cheers and many thanks for your guidance - Exnihilox (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, assuming you are a new editor and not simply a new account. I can see you've started by editing Rochdale, and may well be finding it a baptism of fire as you discover Wikipedia's conventions and policies. Based on what you've done so far I think you have the makings of a good editor, it just takes time to learn how the project works.

If I can offer a tip, it's that the best place to discuss an article is on its talk page, rather than through edit summaries. Talk pages are designed for discussion, and are a much better place to engage with other editors. You may also find it useful to visit the WikiProject UK geography page, which contains guidelines for writing on UK places and is also a forum for discussing articles related to UK geography. Finally, if you need any help don't be afraid to ask me — my own talk page is a good place, and is linked immediately after my username: A.D.Hope (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes - it has been interesting. Though I now know many more experienced folks are engaging, and I am happy for the help - I do need to master a lot of the 'conventions' of Wikipedia - still not sure on adding CITATIONS in an easy manner - any SIMPLE directions would be appreciated. My original goal was simply to use 2021 UK Census data to perform a very quick update - this became a major struggle, though after three revisions we have something that I can live with - the issues relating to how the census treated the ROCHDALE the TOWN/BOROUGH was at the heart of the matter. I do think this article is now far better. As to your primary point - leaving proposed changes in the TALK section - nothing happened - being bold and editing - has drawn in a number of more experienced editors - again thanks for the support, there was some hostility, which did shock me - it appears to have toned down - I AM FROM ROCHDALE AND AS A CURIOSITY - A LOT OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE DOES REFLECT THE LOCAL DIALECT - I left the area in the 1980s and the local accent informs the writing style - which is at times odd. Exnihilox (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't live too far from Rochdale myself, as it happens. It is best to try and use an enycylopedic style, but the odd piece of dialect doesn't really matter — if it's a problem someone will clean it up eventually. It's surprisingly difficult to find 2021 census population data for anywhere smaller than a borough/district, so you certainly have my sympathies there. The source I eventually found isn't the best, but it should do for the moment.

The easiest way to add citations is on desktop, using the 'visual editing' view in the editor (the default view). There's a taskbar at the top of the page, and one of the options is 'cite'. This opens the citation wizard, which will help you create citations. If the source is a webpage then you can copy the URL into the 'automatic' box and it should generate a citation for you. If this doesn't work, or the source isn't a website, then the 'manual' tab provides several templates where you can input the information yourself. Finally, the 're-use' tab allows you to copy a source which already exists in an article. There's a full guide to the process here, which you'll likely find better than my attempt to explain!

Being bold is a valid way to edit the enyclopedia (I do it myself quite a lot), you just have to be prepared for other editors to come in and change your bold edits. If you want more information have a look at the 'Be bold' guideline and the 'BOLD, revert, discuss cycle' essay. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, what you're calling 'citations' in your recent Rochdale edits are actually links. Links are the blue words which generally lead to another part of the encyclopedia. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood - and I did grasp the citation/link functionality, I used the auto feature, and this strengthened the article. Yes, the 2021 data town/borough debacle - I can live with what is there now. Gaining consensus is a clear theme here - though I am not actually sure the two 'shouty' editors are even local to Rochdale. Oddly, I re-wrote a lot of the Wikipedia article on Siegfried Sassoon – the War Poets are an interest. I plan to go back and add links correctly. Obviously, this article has a completely different vibe, no negative feedback came from those changes oddly. There are two editors on the Rochdale article that do seem to focus on what I perceive as total minutiae - though I do comprehend the value of constructive criticism - and I am certainly typo prone - I need to work on that issue – as I am a ‘newcomer; many thanks for your support. Exnihilox (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Posting on talk pages

You placed these edits before PamD's and you did not sign them, so that it looks as if your words were the beginning of PamD's post; you also changed the section header. Please don't do that; instead, place your edits in threaded order and sign them, and do not change another editor's text - including the header.

There is brief guidance at Help:Introduction to talk pages, more at Help:Talk pages and if you ever want more depth, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It's long but it includes some other very pertinent guidance: Overuse of emphasis can undermine its impact! NebY (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you are perhaps very confused - and I am clearly responsible for your tacit confusion. There is a lot of dialog that you clearly have simply not read - while I value your input and commentary - seek first to understand the total picture here. Citing best practices is wonderful - but after the event - this article was really in awful shape. It now appears a little more solid. There are now robust references - there is still an issue over TOWN and BOROUGH. You hooked onto one change - that I made and you are agreeing this is a GOOD change - then you lecture on formality. It took THREE FULL DAYS to enhance this articles and with no help from ANY experienced editors - the content I added is rock solid. If I cannot get collaboration - I will change subject to provoke a good change. In summary, and with great kindness - you have not read the three days of notes OR you would not be lecturing me on this matter. Many thanks and you offer sage advise - Exnihilox (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked at your profile and I have oh so tried to be polite. But other than citing the very obvious - I note a terribly acerbic tone - as you contributed nothing to this article - at least recently kindly respect my humble efforts to get this article into a state where it can be combined with the stub article. I have seen absolutely no contributions from you - perhaps you have done so historically - but not in this flurry of change I initiated - and with great respect - perhaps you need to actually contribute something thoughtful before providing pompous feedback to me that has already been given and understood. At least Pam finally helped me out with citations! Exnihilox (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please look again at that part of Talk:Rochdale as it stands now. It appears from the indentation and the signatures that Pam posted two paragraphs and you wrote one in reply, which I hope you will agree is not correct. NebY (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked but have zero clue what your point is - rather a patten forming. This is in the TALK section - the summary of changes should have all been in the TALK section of course. What do you feel is incorrect? I am open to seeking an understanding - you are rather late to the party. Clarify in a response what/why you think something is incorrect - I am happy to seek an understanding - a courtesy you did not provide to me in this little shouty diatribe you alone initiated - be clear on what you want me to comprehend. Exnihilox (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try again. On the talk page as you left it, below the header "Demographics", the first paragraph beginning "I am honestly not sure" is yours. It's not signed or dated. (The page history shows it posted in three posts, 18:33 – 18:48, 23 June 2023, but there's nothing on the talk page to indicate that.) Because there's no signature or date-stamp to separate it from the next paragraph and the indentation is the same, it appears that the second paragraph runs on from the first. The second paragraph, beginning "As none of", is signed and dated PamD 15:58 23 June 2023. It thus appears to any reader reviewing the discussion, or even considering participating, that the first and second paragraphs were both written by PamD, which is not the case. NebY (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood fully - In an ideal world all of the 'chatter' should have occurred in the TALK section. Though, making small corrections - typos - seems common outside of this 'change proposal environment'. The reality is gaining consensus is a challenge with this data system - and to be honest with you - I really did just jump in the water here - I think it is hard to contest that updating the 2011 reference was pretty reasonable. And the document had whole had unsupported area - I will certainly commit to being more compliant with formalities - this original article had actually irritated me as a consumer of Wikipedia data - I was born in this community so a lot of the random unsupported 'adds' like the 'sporting' and 'famous people' areas - always struck me as a big kluge. Hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from with all of this. I am fine with what we have now - it is a vast improvement. Many thanks - Exnihilox (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Your edit to Rochdale has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. NebY (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for editing disruptively while logged out. Note that multiple accounts and logged-out editing are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)