I have been using Wikipedia routinely since its inception - for some two decades I have made odd additions and corrections as needed, just anonymously - I have only recently chosen to create an account.
All my edits are constructive. Wikipedia editing states that you should not undo an edit, but consider it in made in good faith by default.
If someone adds content as an editor your job is to revue it and re-edit as needed. It is not your job to undo it completely.
You have acted wrongly in doing this.
You have a problem with 'oddly' - it is unneutral? As a Netherlander, I suspect you are unaware of the animosity that runs between Lancashire and Yorkshire? Also, Wigan is located midway between Liverpool and Manchester and is nowhere near Yorkshire. The brief scene at the end of the film is a visual joke on this.
You disagreed with my following the style guidelines for ampersands - it should be Wallace & Gromit - which were correctly placed in the titles as used by Nick Park and Aardman Animations. I had discussed with SleepDeprivedGinger on this matter and there was no dissent on the matter, so I corrected the text to reflect the usage by the original creators.
I added something - you disagreed - your job is not to revert. What you should have done is left it as is, and gone to the 'Talk' and asked me to justify the points and only then once agreed settlement is made are further changes made.
Too many people come to Wikipedia and do as you do making knee-jerk reactions to undo something rather than think and re-edit.
So you undo your reversions and then talk with SleepDeprivedGinger and me on the Talk page if you are at issue with us on points made.
There is reason for bringing the fact of your ignorance to the locality in question. In the UK, contentious rivalries abound - Scotland v. England, Cornwall v. Devon, Oxford v. Cambridge, and this is repeated around the world, with say Flemish v. Walloon in Belgium and Florence v. Pisa, (this list goes on endlessly), that spark to life and fizzle away again all the time.
In all the Wallace & Gromit films, these rivalries is played to with batteries of in jokes to amuse adults, while children enjoy the slapstick.
There is no original research here, but documented observation. Check the video release extras for this content.
Also the use of the ampersand is in full accordance with the style guidance of Wikipedia MOS:AMP if you care to check it.
Now, restore my content or I will do so myself. If you disagree with the points raised that place a counter-argument in the talk to address this or re-edit with additions to the text with your references.
You seem to have misunderstood how Wikipedia normally operates. A bit of reverting is a normal part of the editing process here - you are not going to get anywhere by forbidding others from engaging in the usual process. No one else is obligated to leave your changes in and start a talk page discussion - the onus is on you to get consensus support for your changes. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia might not be the place for you. You've been here less than a month and were issued several warnings. You've unnecessarily brought my nationality into the discussion, now you are accusing me of ignorance, which is an unnecessary personal attack. Stick to the discussion. WP:CIVILITY is policy here. Be nice or don't be here.
You have shown no interest in getting to know the guidelines any better. I will not restore your preferred revision, because I WP:CHALLENGE your addition to the article. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show it's necessary, I do not have to come up with reasons why it isn't. I've already pointed to WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH, which is also a core policy. The "documented observation" is done by you. Telling me to watch a video doesn't change this. Find a reliable source, independent of the subject, that covers it or leave it out.
@Camsteerie: My user talk page is the wrong place to follow up. Again, WP:BRD is a standard process. However much you might wish others wouldn't revert you, you do cannot force them not to. - MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a Wikipedia administrator - it is not your place to undo new input.
Wikipedia's own guidance from the first page is to assume that any new material is done in good faith and so to remove is a destructive act of article vandalism.
If you dispute the content - e.g. believing that the references are weak, then you add a citation needed or whatever else is needed.
If you have broader context issues, then you address these on the talk page.
If the content does not fully reflect the subject heading, then bring in your own referenced material to rebalance the article.
You do not delete wholesale. That is utterly wrong and against the whole Wikipedia ethos. Your views are not the only ones that count.
Your obstructive behaviour has been noted by many others and commented upon. Please correct your behaviour.
Check Help:Editing for guidance and it does not talk about undoing new content at all.
No. Reverting is not some special privilege reserved for administrators. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE (or perhaps WP:ANI). You are proceeding from incorrect assumptions, and you're going to keep having problems here until you come around to how this site actually operates. MrOllie (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that Wikipedia does not reserve reversions to administrators - but may be it should reconsider this matter - to allow editors to correct a page if it has been inoperative (whether by accident or intentionally or has been hacked by say a bot.
The default of editing is not to revert another editor's work — to do so isvandalism — as the removal is a act of wilful destruction of another's work done in good faith.
If you find fault with an edit, you raise it in the talk page and / or ask for references.
It is wrong to act in a knee-jerk reaction to just delete new additions. The correct action is to think of what has been added and consider the overall aim of what is being stated and only then, re-edit by improving the way it has been put forward.
To simply revert is the first step in edit warring and in slapping an undo it is you who is initiating the edit war.
No, you are simply mistaken. Reverting an edit is not vandalism - as you would learn if you read the pages you are linking here. It is your responsibility to get consensus support for your changes. They do not become locked into an article just because you made them in good faith. MrOllie (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
