User talk:Quantpole/Archive 5
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Quantpole in topic User:Crouch, Swale
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
User:Crouch, Swale
Hi. I see that you've been weighing in on some deletion discussions regarding pages created by User:Crouch, Swale. I feel that this editor is creating a large number of pages with little to no merit, about incredibly obscure topics along with bizarre numbers of redirects. For example, despite their article Flushing Farm being up for deletion they have created the following redirects:
- The Flushing Farm, Edwardstone
- The Flushing Farm, England
- The Flushing Farm, Babergh
- The Flushing Farm (Suffolk)
- Flushing Farm, England
- Flushing Farm, Edwardstone
Is there any kind of action that you could think of would be helpful to try and get them to stop cluttering the place up with this geographical trivia? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- As can be seen by their contributions they seem to base a lot of their articles mainly off maps. I personally don't think this is a very good way of starting off articles. With the recent stuff they seem to have expanded their horizons to include listed building databases, which I guess is positive because at least there is something more to the article than what can be gleaned from a road atlas. Unfortunately they have also started using the listed building database to start articles about these buildings themselves which is definitely not a good idea as the vast majority are simply not notable. As far as action goes, I would simply try talking to them. None of the other procedures in "dispute resolution" would carry any weight unless there had been attempts to discuss with the person first.
- The redirects I would just wait until the article deletion discussion has run. If it is delete, then the redirects should be deleted.
- I think the user has good intentions, and it's a bit frustrating to see someone who seems to want to contribute do so in ways that are not necessarily helpful. If attempts to discuss it with them fail and the behaviour continues then I guess the next step would be a WP:RFC/U. Quantpole (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that the editor has good intentions, but they haven't really responded helpfully whenever I've engaged in discussion. Another editor seems to engaged with more success than me in getting them to appreciate the global nature of Wikipedia, so hopefully the addition of obscurities will die down. Thanks. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt it, there are several Yorkshire articles similarly sourced, Nettleton Hill, Jagger Green. There are umpteen redirects for Round Maple try ROUND MAPLE. I have no idea what to do.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's also been pointed out to me quite how many redirects the editor has made to point to the obscure hamlet of Round Maple, pop. 20. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Round_Maple&hidelinks=1&limit=500
- I doubt it, there are several Yorkshire articles similarly sourced, Nettleton Hill, Jagger Green. There are umpteen redirects for Round Maple try ROUND MAPLE. I have no idea what to do.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)