*1quincey*

Your email

Hello, *1quincy* . You sent me an eamil, but I do not wish to communicate in that way for Wikipedia matters. I have tried to explain the situation as I see it at Talk:USS Glasgow: have you read that? The point that I tried to make there is that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Nobody in the world can successfully say "This is how I think this article should read, and so that's that". It's always a matter of bringing other people with you, and sometimes of compromise.

To be honest, I haven't even looked at the article USS Glasgow, or at your edit. I'm not particularly interested in the subject. But I am interested in how Wikipedia works, and I'm concerned that you feel that you have been badly treated. (This is not uncommon for new editors, by the way, especially if they plunge in and try to do something major). As I understand it, you thought there were major errors in the article, either because it was describing a different ship from the one you are interested in, or because it is already conflating two different ships. Either way, you may well be right, and as editors we want all our articles to be the best they can be, according to the available sources.

I think that you are getting frustrated because to your eye it is obviously WRONG and you expect there to be a way that you can FIX IT, or find some person whose job it is to FIX IT. But, as I've tried to explain Wikipedia doesn't work that way. There isn't a form to fill in. There isn't an "editor" or "editorial board" that you can apply to to get your version of how the article should be imposed. Instead there is the talk page, on which several editors have invited you to lay out your recommendation for how the article should be, so that it can be openly discussed. The discussion will be facilitated if you cite the sources you are using for your information.

Perhaps, when you do so, another editor will go "Yes, I see what you mean, I think that would be a good set of edits, let's do them". Perhaps some editors will go "Yes but", and suggest other possibilities you haven't thought of. Perhaps somebody will strongly disagree with you, and you'll need to go to some of the procedures outlined in dispute resolution. But whatever the outcome - even if you dislike part of it - it will be something reached by discussion and consensus, and that is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Simple

At Talk:USS Glasgow start a new discussion. State the information you understand to be correct, WITH REFERENCES. If concensus can be reached then the article can be amended. Your removal of 2/3 of the article was the wrong approach. David notMD (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Middlesex

Er - no. I was born in the Municipal Borough of Hendon, which was in Middlesex, not in the County of London. In 1965, that, along with the Municipal Borough of Finchley, the Friern Barnet Urban District, and some boroughs in Hertfordshire, was absorbed into the new London Borough of Barnet.

Incidentally, you managed to thoroughly confuse everybody else in the thread by picking up on something unrelated that happened to be my User page, and not specifically addressing it to me. No harm done, but it would have been best to address that in a different item, probably on my user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a complete beginner at this kind of thing.

With considerable regret, I have decided to give up on my attempt to edit the Wiki article. I just cannot navigate my way round it and cannot find something which I can hang onto in order to give me some sense of direction. So there we are.

Cheers *1quincey* (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)