User talk:AlphaCentauri58

Holmesfield

I've given reasons for my changes to your text at Holmesfield in my edit summary.

• "Due to" is grammatically incorrect where you've used it – see [1]
• Your use of "however" after a comma is a comma splice – see [2]
• "Situated" is a verbose word that is rarely justified.

Please don't revert without considering and addressing these issues. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, if you are the same person as TheBorg58, you might want to have a read of WP:SOCK. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

AlphaCentauri58, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AlphaCentauri58! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Blaze The Wolf (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit war

Please assume good faith, provide edit summaries and seek consensus at Holmesfield. I have posted requesting discussion of your proposed edits on Talk:Holmesfield in line with the policy outlined at WP:EDITWAR. Please make your case there. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

My God !!! Are you typical of this community ? I stopped answering to other people (unless outside of the law) a long long time ago. For your own sake you really should get a life. That is as kind as I can be. You started this war. Wiki gnome !!! For God’s sake !!! 212.159.79.245 (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm just trying to improve the encyclopedia, in line with Wikipedia's policies. Please discuss your proposed edits at Talk:Holmesfield. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding at Talk:Holmesfield. However – and please don't take this the wrong way – I'm afraid that your response suggests some significant misunderstandings of the policies that Wikipedia editors are expected to follow. In your comment you refer to "my script". The content of the Holmesfield article, including your contributions, is not "yours" (nor is it mine, for that matter). I'd ask you to read WP:OWN and reconsider your reaction. I am unhappy that the Holmesfield article currently contains clear grammatical errors that I am unable to correct without upsetting you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and it has agreed policies. I did not post on your Talk page and at Talk:Holmesfield to provoke you, but rather because that is the recommended mechanism for achieving consensus when two editors fail to agree (see WP:EDITWAR). I have only ever commented on your contributions, not you personally or your motivations. I have been patient given your status as an inexperienced editor (by your own admission) but it's rather galling to be accused of "arrogance", "high-handedness", egotism and failures of etiquette when I have followed procedure to the letter, whereas you have refused any compromise and reverted any attempted changes (in breach of WP:3RR) and told me to "get a life" (amongst other things) in breach of WP:CIVIL. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I've edited the sentence. I've left "situated" in place (since that is, I agree, a matter of taste rather than strict grammar) but I've reworded the beginning of the sentence to avoid the other errors. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. Please don't revert without discussion; if you disagree, please make a case for your preferred wording at Talk:Holmesfield which is, as I've explained, the best forum for achieving consensus. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Dave, thank you for your response and your tact in terms of trying to make concessions. I have to say I am new to Wikipedia and, in truth, I do find you nerdish and Wikipedia is a weird place when it comes to editing. But, I am a fan of Wikipedia, I do contribute financially ( because I use it a lot and feel it is only right to do so) and I accept that ‘Wikigenies’ have a role to fulfill. I feel your contribution is ‘over the top’ and beyond what is required, but I have done some research and I accept from your comments that your edits are well intentioned and are not personal. So I apologise for some of the accusations I made about you and if I caused offence. I accept the new amendments you have made AlphaCentauri58 (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad we've resolved it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)