User talk:80.229.9.98

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (80.229.9.98) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! . dave souza, talk 15:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Warning regarding your edits to Battle of Culloden

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you.---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Jacobite rising

Your edits changed to a markedly Hanoverian perspective, against a long standing consensus at the previous naming, as well as omitting some significant details. We should aim in accordance with WP:NPOV policy to provide both viewpoints, with weight being given to the commonest current usage, and this is something best discussed at Talk:Jacobite rising before making drastic changes. You're also advised to get an account, it gives your comments more weight. Whichever way, please remember to sigh your posts on talk pages. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 16:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Sands

Stop adding Loyalist POV to this article.--Padraig (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have broken 3RR on Bobby Sands please self-revert your last edit or you can be blocked for edit warring.--Padraig (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ❤ 21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Apart from it being ostensibly vandalism (yeah, I know the lyrics) - Alison ❤ 21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that is the case, See Talk:Bobby Sands#Of chicken suppers and reliable sources. Rockpocket 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It is pure vandalism by a Loyalist extremist troll, he is not trying to make any point.--Padraig (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I would counsel you that anonymous contributors should be offered the same courtesies that registered editors are, and thus WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:VANDAL#NOT applies. 80.229.9.98 made the effort to explain his reasoning in an edit summary (which is more than can be said for your reverts) and thus his edits were not vandalism. Moreover, calling anyone a "Loyalist extremist" is a serious charge, please do not make such comments to any Wikipedian.
I'm not going to unblock 80.229.9.98, since he did break WP:3RR. He could probably but the time to good use swatting up on our policies to ensure that the material he adds in future is sourced and neutral, and to learn to take discussions to the talk page rather than revert-war over it. However, on his return I urge you both to work together on the talkpage, using the sources I provided, to come to some consensus on this matter. Rockpocket 22:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


{{unblock|I firmly believe I was undoing vandalism, but I'll leave the matter of whether that's so for the mo'. I believe I should be unblocked because the first warning I received that I was even suspected of edit warring & asked to self-revert was only a matter of minutes before the block was imposed, which didn't give me time to consider the situation.

Even if you don't agree that I was undoing vandalism, you'll surely admit that my seeing it that way was reasonable as if you know the lyrics then you know the song exists as well as I do & you can see that I noted my reasons in the edit summary when another editor actually bothered to explain the removal of my text. I.e. I acted in good faith.

Finally, I maintain that simple removal of the words that I added to the article, without explanation, can only be seen as vandalism & therefore that I have not breached 3rr by undoing such actions. Since we both know the song exists, verifiability is not an issue & does not explain or excuse the unexplained removal of my text. Because I believe the vandals (as I see them) were driven by personal distaste for the lyrics, I'll bother to point out that Wiki has whole pages devoted to 'Mein Kampf' & the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', so distastefulness is not a good enough reason to deny the existence of a work.}}


  • Ok, as the blocking admin, please give me your guarantee that you will refrain from edit-warring - at least for the next 31 hours - on the articles you've been edit-warring on today (there have been more than one, far as I can see), and I shall unblock your account. I strongly recommend you bring your discussion to Talk:Bobby Sands where it is now ongoing - Alison ❤ 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have my guarantee.80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

Alison is this a new policy have you seen this edit summary I think this shows this editors POV quite well.--Padraig (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My POV is irrelevant - it is the POV of alterations that I make to articles that is relevant. I believe that attempting to browbeat an administrator over an administrative decision by villifying another editor for who/what thet allegedly are, rather than their behaviour as an editor, counts as a personal attack. I'll also take this opportunity to point out that there's no shortage of places in the main article on Sands where I might've inserted the term 'terrorist' if I had a POV-driven agenda. Oh, & by the way, Paddy Dear, I've no hesitation in condemning UDF/UDA thugs as 'terrorists' too - that's just the kind of "extremist Loyalist troll" I am...

Ok, how about your tone down the sarcasm and work out how to demonstrate that you have a good reason, in terms of notability and verifiability, that your edits should remain. If you edit war over this again, then I will block you myself. Rockpocket 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblocking for a clear breach 3rr, what they had your sympathy?--Domer48 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Blocks are meant to prevent disruption and this editor has agreed not to edit-war any longer. Any admin should feel free to re-block without warn if he steps out of line again - Alison ❤ 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Request handled by: Alison ❤ 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Page 119 for the Bateman novel. Moustan (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Moustan


[edit] Bobby Sands again

the text is not contained in the provided reference, look yourself here if you can find it then it would be a acceptable reference, which is why it was initially removed.--Padraig (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in the segment posted on the CAIN site, therefore it can't be used within that ref, if you can find it in the actual book itself then provide a seperate ref giving the page number, until till then it can be removed as WP:OR and is not allowed under WP:RS, which is why I seperated it from the rest of the sentence and added a fact tag.--Padraig (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hello 80.229.9.98. You might note that when I asked Alison to reconsider you block (above) I suggested you have a read of our policies and consider that revert-warring is not an acceptable method of editing Wikipedia. Since then you have made a number of edits, particularly this one that are problematic and likely to get you blocked again before too long. Let me give you some examples of the problems in this single edit:

  • Edit summaries are good, but for explaining the contents of the edit, for for making comments about other editors such as "amateurs should grow up." Please consider whether such comments are likely to foster a friendly and collaborative environment, or to aggravate other editors. Even if the other editor is rude to you, replying in kind is not acceptable.
  • Please not that WP should state facts, not explain, justify or reason. Language such as "In order to understand the reasoning..." or "It is also worth noting that X pales into insignificance..." is not acceptable. These are all value judgements and reflect your opinion. If they reflect the opinion of a notable historian or commentator, then they can be used, but must be attributed, e.g. "John Smith argues that that X pales into insignificance... [ref]."
  • Finally, when adding controversial or historical content, you must cite a reliable source. A link to another article is not sufficient. If you don't it will likely get reverted and if you revert war over it you will probably end up blocked again.

I asked Alison to reconsider your block because I thought you might have a point about the Sands issues and I assumed, in good faith, that your motivations were to improve the article, rather than make a cheap point. Your subsequent edits are beginning to look very much like your goal is to introduce your personal take on certain issues, rather than introduce neutral and sourced content. I strongly suggest you either learn some of our polices and guidelines I have linked to here (WP:5P is a good place to start) before editing controversial articles again, or else you take a step back from such contentious issues. If you carry on like you have over the last few days your time here will be limited. Please think about this. Rockpocket 02:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you response. I understand how an aggressive and confrontation response from other editors (who should really know better) can lead to a response in kind. However, its this sort of tit-for-tat confrontation that personalizes issues and creates problems. I have noted, elsewhere, that helping new editors rather than reverting and accusing them of vandalism is what we should be aiming for. Its no fun being accused of being a vandal, and I took issue with those doing that of you. However, you note that you felt others "gratuitously vandalised my edits". Have a read of WP:VANDAL and you will realize that other editors are not vandalizing anything, but simply trying to help improve the project in the same way you are. Its really important that people work together, under the assumption of good faith, rather than immediately assuming the worst possible interpretation of another editor's motivations.
Regarding sources, its not good enough, I'm afraid, to simply state that the information is in a book in the bibliography. Most controversial content (or anything that could be challenged) should be cited inline (See Wikipedia:CITE#How to cite sources). If you don't know how to cite inline, ask for help on the talkpage, someone will help you. In addition, instead of jumping straight into an article and editing it controversially, consider drafting your content on the talkpage, discuss it with others and thrash out problems there, then copy it to the article. This breeds good faith and stops edit-warring.
I haven't been "taken in" by anyone (and again, assuming someone is being "malicious" is a really bad sign considering are going to have to continue to work with these editors if you wish to continue working on these articles). The other editors you have had problems with may have written you off way to quickly, but they are not out to harm the project, so they deserve some respect and, in return, they will afford you with respect too. Rightly or wrongly, editing from an IP often causes other editors to distrust you (you could consider getting an account). I don't buy that, however, there are community norms people must follow, especially if they are going to edit controversial articles. I have been trying to direct you towards them, but if you continue to edit war and make critical comments about other editors, edit controversial article without adding inline sources, and edit only a small sub-set of articles all from a single point of view, then you are going to have a tough time. That is just a statement of fact, based on my experience. So, please, try and chill out a bit, build bridges with other editors and use the talk pages rather than reverting and you will see you have a much more successful time improving articles. Rockpocket 04:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. Rockpocket 08:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)