User talk:TheEditorInAction: Difference between revisions

Hello, I’m Hammersoft. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Eccleshill, Bradford, but you didn’t provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it’s important that article content be verifiable. If you’d like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made a mistake. TheEditorInAction (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You added several paragraphs and provided no citations to reliable, secondary sources to support them. Further, the language of some of it sounded promotional in nature. Please see WP:NEUTRAL. —Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.moorsidesurgery.nhs.uk/

Moorside Surgery.

https://bradfordmuseums.org/venue/bradford-industrial-museum/

Moorside Mills TheEditorInAction (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Moorside Mills a “key local landmark” is hardly neutral, and isn’t supported by the link you noted above, nevermind that that is a primary source. That it exists there can be supported. That it is a “key local landmark” needs to be supported by a reliable secondary source. Similar goes for Moorside Surgery. Ok, you can prove it exists. But, using language such as access to local amenities strikes as a tourist guide rather than an encyclopedia. —Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So please can you amend the description as I am trying to update the area description. But don’t remove the correct information. TheEditorInAction (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are trying to update the area description, but turning it into a tourist/living guide is a non-starter. See WP:NOTGUIDE. —Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake as I am new to editing but I encourage you to amend the description and to research this area as it does follow what what I put down but will need amending and some words needs removing or changing to a better and correct understanding and if you are willing to edit it then please as you may have the right words, thanks. TheEditorInAction (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the starting point is to revert your addition. It reads like marketing material. —Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed the promotional aspects, guide aspects, and mention of the museum (as it is mentioned later in the article). Please do not restore. —Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Moorside Mills is in no way trying to promote as a guide as you claim but as part of the history of the area, but I did try to amend the description but you might of had a misunderstanding.

https://bradfordmuseums.org/venue/bradford-industrial-museum/

https://www.visitbradford.com/things-to-do/bradford-industrial-museum-p1622061

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/24566349.bradford-industrial-museum-time-capsule-home-work-life/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Industrial_Museum

This history is already a documented page for Moorside Mills on Wikipedia. TheEditorInAction (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe I have any misunderstanding. Three times today you have attempted to add this material to the article [1][2][3], and have been reverted by two editors. You should carefully read WP:EW and WP:3RR. Indicating Moorside is “popular” and “known for” is promotional in nature, and not supported by any reliable, secondary sources. Talking about the amenities that a place has is not encyclopedic, and smacks of being a guide to the place. Talking about “offering potential for first-time buyers and families alike” sounds like real estate speak. This article is not an extension of visitbradford.com. It’s an encyclopedia article, not a marketing piece. Enough. —Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Moorside Mills Wikipedia page? I don’t understand? Should that now be removed? TheEditorInAction (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no page, and never has been a page, at Moorside Mills. —Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one: Bradford Industrial Museum TheEditorInAction (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it’s already worded on Ecclesshill page by a previous editor as I’ll show you: Bradford Industrial Museum

edit

Main article: Bradford Industrial Museum

In the south of Eccleshill off Moorside Road close to Fagley is the Bradford Industrial Museum in what was Moorside Mills.This museum houses machinery from local textile and printing industries and has a row of workers houses. It used to house the popular Horses at Work exhibition but this has now closed.

This is under landmarks section. TheEditorInAction (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were asking about the Moorside Mills page. That does not exist. Somebody someday might be able to make an article about the property before it became a museum, but it does not exist now and never has existed. The Bradford Industrial Museum article does exist, but I don’t see any reason to delete it and I fail to see how that is pertinent to allowing you to add marketing material to Eccleshill, Bradford. —Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now you’re engaging in revert warring to your preferred version? You need to read Wikipedia:Edit warring. Now. —Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Eccleshill, Bradford, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Lynch44 14:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you’ve made to Eccleshill, Bradford. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article’s talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. —Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]