User talk:Crouch, Swale - Wikipedia

Hello, Crouch, Swale, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. ϢereSpielChequers 13:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for all the effort you're putting into creating articles on Cumbrian villages. You may not know but there is a WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria dedicated to improving the coverage of the two counties on Wikipedia. We would love you to join so that we can co-operate on development of articles. All the best. NtheP (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, all your articles are uncategorized. If nothing else, could you please add the stub, {{england-stub}} to the bottom of these new pages? Thanks. — Timneu22 · talk 13:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Homan's Copse. Are there any images of your village? If so, you can add them to the article. Cheers. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for creating some fantastic articles on UK places. Please take time to learn Wikipedia's manual of style for UK places, as this would make your articles even better. I have tidied some of the most recent articles for you. -- role^player 12:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might also find the county geography stub templates handy, e.g. Category:Suffolk geography stubs. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

For Suffolk stubs, rather than add the category directly, just add {{suffolk-geo-stub}} rather than {{england-stub}}. You can also usefully add the category Category:Villages in Suffolk, for when the article has grown beyond a stub. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! I keep running into your new stub articles on English counties, hundreds, etc. I'd just like to point out that it would be helpful to read over WP:REF to get a better sense on how to format references. Thanks for all of your additions! GorillaWarfare ^talk 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have created the following articles and I would like them to be put through the speedy deletion process.

Walton Summit, Cathkin, Lanarkshire‎.

Delivered August 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 10:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Delivered September 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 06:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, now that you've converted Hadleigh into a disambiguation page, could you help fix the links that need to be re-pointed to an article per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Navigation popups, with the popupFixDabs flag set to true, is very helpful. Cheers! --JaGa^talk 11:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you recently edited White House (disambiguation). Not sure if you noticed, but when you edit a disambiguation page, it reads at the top, "Generally only one navigable link (blue link) belongs in each bulleted entry." I've fixed the entry you added, but just FYI, for future edits. 0¹⁸ (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have moved a number of articles and created disambiguation pages in cases where there are two places with the same name. You may like to consider whether one of the two places should be the primary topic, in which case a dab page is not needed (see WP:TWODABS). If you do go ahead and convert the original page to a dab page, please remember to fix the links to that page, per WP:FIXDABLINKS. I have dealt with this at Upton, Oxfordshire, but there seem to be several others. Thanks. --Mhockey (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please stop now creating one line stubs about English hamlets without including at least the minimum information required for Wikipedia articles on settlements; Mass creation of stubs is considered WP:disruptive editing, and can lead to the author being blocked. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd agree with what Kudpung said. At the very least, I'd like to see some indication in the article as to why these hamlets are significant, and - ideally - I'd like to see {{coord}} being used so that other editors are spared the hassle of having to tag them for missing the "coord", then yet more editors have to determine where the hamlets are, and add in the coord. TFOWR 09:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please ignore the comments above. Long-standing consensus is that articles on human settlements of any size are acceptable in Wikipedia. Building the encyclopedia by creating stubs that others can improve complies with our editing policy and is something to be encouraged. The only disruption that I see here is that two editors, including an administrator who should know much better, are discouraging you from helping to build this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does this rule include "settlements" that are just a house or two? Dbfirs 15:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have been using A–Z street atlases as a source, which clearly shows the difference between a hamlet and a house Homan's Copse (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's fine if you check that the locations really are settlements, but some of your source maps tend to name just random houses in rural areas, and you are mis-interpreting this as meaning that there is a significant settlement there. Dbfirs 11:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately this editor is describing every place mentioned on a map as a hamlet, see Jaw Hill. With respect the A-Z doesn't differentiate between houses and hamlets or neighbourhoods, and doesn't claim to. Most of these places are not notable and should be merged into appropriate articles or deleted.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think some research should be done before creating stub articles for random mentions on a map. Dbfirs 16:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Jaw hill is clearly a settlement, see http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm Homan's Copse (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Delivered October 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 00:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you have a look at the recent copy/move & redirect that you did for Thorncliffe & Thorncliff as they all seem to redirect to a new article called Thorncliffe, Thorncliffe, Kirkburton, which doesn't seem right? Thozza (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed that you moved Acton, London to Acton, Greater London, this seems wrong, the guideline you quoted says "For the City of London and Greater London combined [[placename, London]] is used.". Thanks Grim²³★ 13:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, now that Eccleshill is a disambig, please remember to WP:FIXDABLINKS. Thanks! --JaGa^talk 20:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will continue to tag non notable articles in the area in which I live. You should be aware that List of United Kingdom locations is a wikipedia page and not an independent source of notable places. You really shouldn't believe everything you read here. A mention in an A-Z is hardly a decent reference. I see from your user page you appear to be on a crusade to create these articles with an average of 2 edits per page, it would be far more impressive to see them developed. I live in W Yorks and can assure you of their non notability.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you read How to write about settlements before you add irrelevant headings to articles. Please do not them to articles I have taken the trouble to expand or I will most definately remove them. Thank you--J3Mrs (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have granted your account the autopatrolled flag. WilliamH (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Will you please stop referencing innaccuracies to the A-Z. It is not helpful.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you copy and paste text from listed Buildings Online as you did at Round Maple, you will get a copyvio notice. You are supposed to write it in your own words as I have now done. You over link the articles, naming every road and placename within a five mile radius does not make them any more notable. Constant references to A-Z maps are not needed when coordinates are used. Please read the guidelines.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You shouldn't reference to A-Z because you find it a convenient way of avoiding unreferenced tags! References show notability, coordinates show location. As far as anchors go stop creating pages to places that aren';t notable and there won't be a problem. Short articles, according to the Manual of Style should have fewer headers. You really should check whether a place is REALLY notable rather than a word on a map BEFORE you create a page.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looking at whatlinkshere suggests that there are a significant number of links intended for the Australian town. It would perhaps have been more helpful to at least fix the dablinks first, and even better to have discussed before moving. We now have a situation in which it is much harder to fix the links than it was before your move. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can I please have help expanding Round Maple, especially the Quicks Farm section and the Seasons section from http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-490837-quicks-farmhouse-edwardstone and http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-276464-seasons-edwardstone, thankyou Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 11:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

HI. You'll see that the stuff you had put in the edit notice of this page has gone. I took it out because the code had made it impossible for anyone to leave a message here. This is the stuff I removed (it's everything that's between the <nowiki></nowiki> tags when you view this page or this section in edit mode.--Kudpung (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Reply

The next problem is the welcome message template you are trying to use, such as the one you placed on User talk:Impossiblekgirl. It's great to see you wanting to welcome people, but there's something seriously wrong there too if you look at the page in edit@ mode and see all the code it's generated. If you're not sure how templates work and are programmed, it's best to stick with the standard oes we use - for one thing, although I know you are trying to be helpful, but there's just too much information in that one for a young kid who's taking their first wobbly steps at Wikipedia. Take care, and happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Hamlets in England has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe this project may have been created out of process and without the necessary support. However as I don't deal with wikiprojects I don't really know how to deal with it so I've posted a question here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Category:Round Maple, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you started a new article. I made a couple of changes to the formatting of the references. Firstly, I put the references after the full-stops instead of before. That just makes them look a bit nicer. Secondly, I noticed that you used the same reference four times. Each time it was being listed as a new reference; giving four identicle entries in the reference list. You can name references. You used <ref>A-Z Essex, 2010 edition. p. 170</ref> every time you wanted to use that reference. That gave four duplicate copies, with four different in-line numbers: see here. What I did was name the reference. The first time it was used I wrote <ref name="A-Z">A-Z Essex, 2010 edition. p. 170</ref>. That named the reference as A-Z. Then, for each following use of that reference I put <ref name="A-Z"/>. That gave a single in-line number, and a single reference list entry (indexed by letter): see here. I hope you like the way it looks now. If you use it in the future, then just remember to give different references different names and you'll save a lot of typing, a lot of space, and your article will be neater and easier to understand. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

P.S. You can archive or delete anything on your user talk page at any time. Deleting it is an acknowledgement that you've read it. If you didn't want all of those speedy deletion notices clogging everything up, or if you didn't want my two posts clogging things up, then there's nothing stopping you doing some house keeping. All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

ON the other hand, all those notices are a sign that you might be needing some help with understanding some of the policies and process of building this encylopedia. It's an opportunity for people like me to jump in and lend a friendly hand :) --Kudpung (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou for your advice, I have now fixed Heckfordbridge. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 11:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Delivered December 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 00:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Delivered December 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 00:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can I suggest you do a bit more research before making a requested move for a place as many of you move requests are being strongly opposed. I'd also suggest you give a longer and better reason. "Clearly primary" offers no one else any information while you think this is the case and it's becoming clear that to many people the reason is far from clear. Dpmuk (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please, I must second that request. We assume good faith on your part but these half-baked requests are wasting a lot of time, and our patience will not last forever. If you want to be active on WP:RM, you need to read and understand WP:NC and make it a practice to base your arguments on it. Andrewa (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Crouch. Please do not manually put Tables of Contents (TOC) in articles you create. Short articles do not need them and this is taken care of automatically by the site software when the article reaches certain size. By the way, have you read back over your talk page recently? I know that you really want to help build this encyclopedia, but It does seem that there are a lot of things that you are not getting quite right yet. These things are creating a lot of extra work for regular editors. Please do not hesitate to ask for advice before you do anything that ou have not looked up the instructions for first and fully understood. and if you are still not sure, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Bear in mind that there are also Wikipedia projects for Geography, Cities and places, England, and most English counties, regions, metropolitan authorities, and districts, that also provide further guidelines for editors.--Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Crouch, along the same lines I suggest you refrain from making any more move proposals (or moving any articles) until you get a better grasp of how articles are named in general, and what are good reasons for moving them. I say this because you have made a series of move proposals that are contrary to our naming policy and guidelines, and have been universally opposed because of that. The best way to develop a better understanding of how articles are titled is probably to peruse the logs at WP:RM and participate in the various discussions, especially paying attention to the arguments made by others, and how the decisions are made. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Crouch. I have been reviewing your recent contributions and wondered if you would allow me to offer some pieces of advice.

• References to A-Z atlases and photographs. You are fond of using A-Z and photographs as a references, I know that others have already spoken to you about this and explained the inherent problems but I thought I should raise it again. The easiest way to explain it is that when you are citing information, the reference you link to needs to contain actual text (i.e. sentences) which support the statements in the article. Linking to a photograph or a map requires both you and the reader to make an interpretation and this all falls into the murky world of original research. An example would be where you used a photograph of a woodland path to reference the statement "....has several footpaths" whereas what is required is a reference to a reliable source where someone has written (for example) "there are a number of footpaths in Edwardstone Woods"
• Far more useful than a page number in an atlas is to actually give the geographical co-ordinates of the settlements. This will provide a link for people to click on which will allow them to select from a variety of map providers and different views. How to do this is explained in details at WP:COORD.
• Redirects, templates and categories. You have recently created a lot of redirects, templates and categories many of which are now being discussed for deletion. This is obviously using up an awful lot of the community's time which I am sure you will agree could more usefully be spent improving articles. I appreciate that all your edits are being made in absolute good faith and that you are genuinely here for the good of the project but I was hoping that you could try to be more discerning with your creations. I would imagine that you have a feel by now for what is likely to be nominated for deletion so perhaps you could apply your own sanity test before you hit that "create" button. Whilst you obviously disagree with the arguments presented by the "deleters" I would highly recommend that you read them carefully and try to take on board the comments as they do appear to be representing community consensus.

You have caught the attention of a number of topographical editors now and I am worried that if you carry on as you have been and ignore the advice that you have been given both on this page and at various other talk venues the outcome will be accusations of disruptive editing. I would hate to see that happen.I might be wrong (and if I am then please accept my apologies in advance) but I get the impression that you are quite young and perhaps you have not yet had life experience of working collaboratively which is a skill in itself and is even more difficult in an environment like Wikipedia when your fellow contributors are remote and effectively anonymous.

I am more than happy to answer any questions or queries you might have so please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you need any help. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 18:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

One final thing. the UK Georgaphy Wikiproject has a really good page on how to write about settlements. It can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and I think could be very useful to you. Best, Nancy ^talk 18:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please do not remove notability tags unless you can provide reliable references that are not maps. I refer to Nancy's edit above. What you are doing now is quite disruptive. Nettleton Hill is a lane, an address, not a notable place. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please don't create disambiguation pages that go only to red-links, as you did at School Green. If there are valid articles to be made, make them first, and only make a DAB page when there is something to disambiguate. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. JohnCD (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clatterford End (near Chelmsford). Since you had some involvement with the Clatterford End (near Chelmsford) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 65.94.45.209 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clatterford End (near Fyfield). Since you had some involvement with the Clatterford End (near Fyfield) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 65.94.45.209 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clatterford End (near Toot Hill). Since you had some involvement with the Clatterford End (near Toot Hill) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 65.94.45.209 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stainton, Cumbria (near Penrith). Since you had some involvement with the Stainton, Cumbria (near Penrith) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 65.94.45.209 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Category:Cliburn, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Delivered January 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 08:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

For the last time, please don't create any more redirects in your userspace. It doesn't matter whether they are pointing to mainspace or elsewhere they are still pointless, unnecessary and as you are aware from your previous block, can be considered disruptive. I have deleted the two from earlier today.

It seems to me that you are wanting Wikipedia to be something of a playground so I was wondering whether you knew about The Test Wiki - http://www.thetestwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page Over there you can do pretty much as you please, even deleting pages as you can become an admin or a 'crat just by asking. I think that this might fulfil some of your need for random editing and allow you then to limit your Wikipedia contributions to things which don't get you in to trouble. nancy 21:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have also closed the Cliburn peer review. As you will be aware from comments on the peer review and at the article talk the nomination was somewhat premature as PR is intended for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate". The appropriate place for receiving feedback on an article of Cliburn's standard is on its own talk page or possibly at WP:RFF. nancy 08:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject English hamlets, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject English hamlets and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject English hamlets during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. nancy 16:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Suffolk and Essex, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Suffolk and Essex and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Suffolk and Essex during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. nancy 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I edited Round Maple under my username once, then I made 2 more edits to it (a few seconds later)1 and for some reason I was editing under my IP address, I hadn't logged out, can an admin please change the contributions to me, thankyou for your time. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(note: I am not an administrator) I'm sorry, but that's not possible. Regards, User:TBloemink/Signature 16:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just a couple of things so you know in case this ever happens to you again (we all do it sometimes :) ) - We can't actually change the edit you made to show your username instead of your IP, but we can hide the IP from everyone so that it doesn't show up any more. Also, most administrators aren't able to make those kinds of changes, you need to contact someone who also has WP:Oversight who can hide the IP address in the history. Since I have both, I've gone ahead and removed them from the history for you, so you should be all set. Shell ^babelfish 16:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you please disclose what connection you have to Groton Wood (talk · contribs)? Thanks, nancy 19:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply[1] however it does not really address the main issue which is that at the moment I think the circumstantial evidence is probably enough for a sockpuppet/sockmaster block. Before I proceed down that route I would like to hear your side of it. The "coincidences" are:

1. New user Groton Wood (talk · contribs) pops up and immediately starts creating articles for hamlets and woods. Just like you do.
2. User:Groton Wood creates new articles in exactly the same geographical areas that you edit in i.e. settlements in Cumbria and the Edwardstone area of Suffolk
3. User:Groton Wood chooses a geographical article he has created as his user name - just as you have with your last two usernames since you stopped editing under your real name
4. Within a few hours of the article Groton Wood being created, you dive in to "clean it up". Similarly you turn up very quickly at St. Mary's, Edwardstone. I cannot see any edit from User:Groton Wood which might have alerted you to the existence of these articles. Nowhere did he/she add links to extant articles which you might have been watching neither did he/she update any templates. Indeed, User:Groton Wood has not ever edited outside those brand new pages so how did you know they existed?

The only thing which is stopping me blocking on sight is that User:Groton Wood's use of language is poorer than yours however this could equally well be part of the ruse. nancy 14:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Groton Wood has never been to Cumbria or created any pages on hamlets. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Apologies. Linburn is not in Cumbria but it is a "hamlet". I will strike above. Regardless, this minor error on my part does not detract from the substance of the coincidences which you still need to address nancy 14:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

According to the article, Linburn is a village, although it is up for AFD. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not here to discuss semantics. Please can you address the substance of this problem - I am giving you a chance to explain the coincidences. but if you continue to avoid the issue I shall take that as confirmation that you have something to hide and will block you for socking. nancy 14:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

But there are 51,446,000 people in England, do you not think that there quite easily could have been one of those 51,446,000 who bothered to log in as User:Groton Wood. Thankyou. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

No I don't and have explained exactly why above. Now, stop avoiding the issue. How about you start by explaining coincidence number 4? nancy 14:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

What about the Round Maple page that turned a red link blue. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've had your talk page watch listed for some time now after one of the previous incidents that I was involved in. I strongly suggest you stop ignoring Nancy's question by asking other questions or pointing at other stuff you've done. You may not agree with her but just ignoring the question will get you blocked as she has a valid concern that you need to answer. Dpmuk (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I watch Round Maple a huge amount (see this and this). (creating in was my first ever edit and It's by far my top edited article) so I noticed the redlink turn blue. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK that's a start, but I am not completely convinced - Edwardstone Woods was indeed a redlink in Round Maple however the first of User:Groton Wood's articles that you edited was St. Mary's, Edwardstone (at 18:11 on the 14th Jan[2]). St. Mary's, Edwardstone wasn't linked from Round Maple until 18:24.[3] You didn't edit Edwardstone Woods until 18:22[4]]. Also a redlink going blue won't show in your watchlist and there weren't any revisions to Round Maple in the timeframe which might have caused you to click through. nancy 15:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify that I do not consider this matter closed and I do expect further explanation from you. nancy 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Blocked

You have continued to edit for the past couple of hours whilst ignoring my request for further explanation. I have therefore blocked this account indefinitely. Note that indefinite is not infinite and I will happily unblock (and/or be happy for another admin to unblock) should you adequately account for the concerns I have detailed above. In the meantime however I can only presume that User:Groton Wood is an account created by you, or at your instruction. If this is the case then I would suggest that best course of action for you will be to come clean. nancy 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• But I was creating and improving articles. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 08:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Nancy, can you please explain to me what a review is as I don't think it's normal to watch a user's every contribution (there is no WP:User review). Thankyou. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Can I suggest that we both move on and we don't have any thing else to do each other as we have both been understanding of each other but we have both could do with moving on now so that there aren't any further problems, I think I've been watched enough. 09:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Who mentioned "user review" and in what context? Are you referring to the fact that your edits in general are under a degree of scrutiny from a number of editors? If so, this is because of the issues that there have been with your contributions as evidenced by the litany of warnings, block notifications and deletion discussion notifications in the history of this very page. None of this however has bearing on the matter in hand which is your connection with User:Groton Wood & we won't be "moving on" until that has been resolved. nancy 09:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Postscript: I shall not be replying to your posts again until you return to the topic of User:Groton Wood nancy 09:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Im I not right in thinking that the Suspected sockpuppets and the main account are kept unblocked so that they can take part in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I'm supprised you havn't opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crouch, Swale. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 09:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know you have been involved in SPI before (an example would be the David of York, or whatever his name was) so I guess you will be involved in another one. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 09:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

How long then are you going to keep me blocked for then. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 12:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is the block message you put "no expiry set, account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: WP:DUCK. May be unblocked if adequate explanation re User:Groton Wood is received.". Can you please explain what I need to do then. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 12:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're wasting your breath Crouch. Nancy is taking a break from your constant badgering and will not be replying to any more of your messages. We have all tried to help you but you didn't listen. My advice to you is that you find find yourself another hobby for a while - at least for the next six months while others now clean up the mess you have made of the Wikipedia. Kudpung (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did listen and there is no "mess" apart from posibly where I havn't known how to do something and that has left something incomplete. I have made a huge number of constructive edits to this encyclopedia, I can't understand why my work isn't being appriciated as much as it should. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 13:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

To start moving towards an unblock it's quite simple, answer the concerns Nancy gives above. To put is simply (Nancy - I hope I've got what you want broadly right):

1. Are you also User:Groton Wood?
2. If not, are you in any way linked to them - do you discuss things, share a computer or anything else?
3. If you're not linked to them please explain the coincidences above in more detail - preferably answering all 4 of Nancy's queries at a minimum.

As I'm sure you're aware wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. Although you may think your work is good and not being properly appreciated, it's clear that consensus is that lots of it isn't suitable for wikipedia. That isn't to say it isn't good work and in the right environment it will probably be appreciated, there's just a concern that wikipedia isn't the right place. Dpmuk (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)13:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

What you've done Crouch, is created hundreds of of unwanted, extremely short hamlet stubs, hundreds of unwanted redirects, and two illegal projects. You pretend fake innocence when cornered, and you ignore all the requests and warnings you have been given. I won't be posting here again either, so any future messages from you will probably be falling on cloth ears. Nobody is ever going to be as tolerant with you as Nancy was. Please find a new hobby.Kudpung (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

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

Article not backed up by the one source provided - supposed hamlet not named in source, which refers to a milestone, not a building

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Does the fact that I have bothered to log back into this account, rather than creating a new clean account with a clean block log not say something. I read somewhere in one of the WP: pages something like that the community will have more respect for you if you continue using your old account, rather than creating a new account. Crouch, Swale ^talk 11:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
• Should I just say User:Groton Wood is a sock of me. Crouch, Swale ^talk 11:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Only if it is true. Is it? nancy 15:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Per these CU results, yes, it's true - and there were half a dozen other confirmed socks as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear, well that's that then isn't it Crouch. I take no pleasure in having my suspicions confirmed by checkuser and I very much regret that you weren't honest about this when I fist asked you about it as everything might have had a very different outcome. As it is I am afraid that because you persisted with the lie I will not be unblocking you and I doubt that any one else will either. nancy 19:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply