User talk:86.163.207.251

Manchester
This Manchester article is factually incorrect in the initial paragraph, with a leading bias towards Birmingham. I have attempted to correct this with proper citations, but unfortunately scrupulous editors appear to have an unfavourable agenda. They have been reported and risk their editing permissions being terminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.207.251 (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So who are these "scrupulous editors"? Where have they been "reported"? Where was "Birmingham" mentioned in the initial paragraph? Your addition here appears to be sourced to a blog. But even with a WP:RS, it should not introduce material that is not fully covered in the main body of the article. Please take to Talk:Manchester if you disagree. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. this is a not a Manchester article, this is your Talk page.

It is not appropriate to write in the initial paragraph that Manchester is the sixth largest city (by city population) because the statistics used are very outdated. Manchester on almost every other social-economic indicator is clearly the second largest in the UK. So try and re-phrase the initial sentences to give Manchester a more "important" feel, as this would better reflect the current urban dynamic of the UK. I suggest reading the article of Birmingham for some inspiration.


 * The source you have provided is this one. While I’m sure David George, the Associate Director, Falconer Chester Hall, is perfectly entitled to his opinion and that he writes very clearly, I’m not sure that’s an appropriate source, published by "Insider Media”, to support the claim that Manchester "is frequently referred to as the United Kingdom's second city." It’s not even clear to me if George is referring to Manchester or to Greater Manchester Built-up Area. From where does he get his figure of 2,553,379? The info box currently gives a population of “547,627” with a rank of 5th. Also, I'd suggest that claims should not be added to the lead section that do not appear in the main body (which is where any sources should also appear). Unfortunately your edits have made the article inconsistent and self-contradictory. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. I’ll copy this over to Talk:Manchester where any discussion is likely to be seen my more editors and thus be more productive.

Even so, my edit provides much more accuracy and logical depth to introduce the article. Wikipedia is not an academic journal, so citations shouldn't be scrutinised as such. They are merely a simple reference to a point or fact. My edit provides the necessary detail to introduce Manchester as a large city, and while I take on-board what you say, I'm afraid I categorically disagree and other editors as you suggest should be involved to resolve this conflict of interest.


 * All citations need to be scrutinized and the one you have used there is just a personal opinion piece by a non-expert. Falconer Chester Hall is a private firm of architects? I don't think that source should be used as a source anywhere in the article, but certainly not in the lead section. High quality sources are always to be preferred. I'd be grateful if you could stop edit warring at the article (you are likely to be blocked if you don't) and if you could present any arguments you may have at the article Talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Birmingham
I see you are now also edit warring at Birmingham, as part of an agenda which seems to be something along the lines of "Manchester is more important than Birmingham". Are you familiar with WP:BRD? If you don't start to engage in some discussion, on the relevant article Talk pages, but instead insist on blindly edit warring, it is not likely to end well for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Birmingham shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Woody (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)