User talk:MRWH359

Hello, MRWH359, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Check out some of these pages:
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Links to draft articles[edit]

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Clonard, County Meath and List of last stands. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No bother, I will keep that in mind for the future, thanks. MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjayay,

I noticed on the revision of the changes you removed my entry for the Siege of Jadotville can you put that back please.

Also regarding the entry for the Battle of Clonard's entry on the last stand can you put it back in but just remove the link to the draft article rather than remove it entirely.

Cheers,

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canterbury Talk,

It also means they are reverting it to how "they" think it should be.

_______

(mini side rant ->) There needs to be a centralized authority backed by and held to academic standards with the ability of members of the public to carry out edits which would be reviewed by the authority in all fairness but that's a problem for another day.

________

I've put up topics in the talk pages for each article I appear to be in an "edit war" in and am awaiting response at present, some of them just seem to be reverting the reversions rather than discussing them while I'm attempting a civil discussion and redirecting them to the talk page to hash it out. If that fails or they don't engage I will attempt arbitration by a 3rd party.

I appreciate your assistance and advice on this matter.

Kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair your reason for reversions "rv per WP:OVERLINK and pushing of calendar system most people don't know." isn't really fair as it has nothing to do with WP:OVERLINK as described in that article and the statement regarding the knowledge of the dating system isn't valid as it is used presently and with increasing frequency in academic circles. As well as the fact that you personally don't know if most people know about it or not.

kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Rebels Storming The Turret At Lieut Tyrells 1798 printed in 1864.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Rebels Storming The Turret At Lieut Tyrells 1798 printed in 1864.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Clonard has been accepted[edit]

Battle of Clonard, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acroterion,

I'm not attacking anyone I made some minor edits to remove unconfirmed statements and blatant inflammatory political biases from 3 articles and make them non-biased and accurate as Wikipedia should be, and included pertinent information earlier in one article which was not addressed until later in the article. Also included important information regarding the information provided to the public at the time as me being a first hand witness to the unfortunate events can attest.

The other guy made changes to suit his obvious political bias (to prove just look at his edit history and awards) he then proceeded to attack every other article I edited in the last few weeks which were nothing to do with that topic.

If anyone is being attacked it's me so go have a chat with the other guy.

Kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no such attacks from CeltBrowne. You’re being disagreed with after making substantial undiscussed changes. CeltBrowne has explained their reverts. Go to the relevant talkpages and explain your edits, politely. Any more personal attacks will bring a block, you are inappropriately personalizing disagreement. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly is then why else would he change countless other edits I made on other articles? No I'm neutralizing the language being used which is unfounded, inflammatory and insulting to someone who was present in the city when the event took place and saw first hand what happened on both sides of the fence. He hasn't explained his reverts at all he just did them then accused me of being editorial which he obviously is doing even on an article where I changed a couple of words. I have made no personal attacks on him I simply pointed out his obvious political agenda for posterity so I have no idea what you are talking about there. Is he a friend of yours? I don't see why I'm being disregarded of hand and everything he has done has been taken as gospel. Who exactly can I speak to who is in charge of this whole thing?

Kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator, and I’m speaking to you, having noticed your hostile edit summaries, and your continuing assumptions of bad faith. Consider this a final warning. Acroterion (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, is there a list of administrators or council or something for future reference?

As I previously stated I haven't made any hostile edits summaries I simply responded to his personal attacks. The assumptions of bad faith are based on the aspect that only I'm being spoken to (as far as I'm aware.)

What is standard procedure for making edits then so I'm aware for future reference?

I'm not sure what you mean please clarify are saying if I edit the edits again I'll be blocked for X amount of time or I continue having a conversation with you I'll be blocked for X amount of time? How much time? I'm still relatively new at this so I'm genuinely unsure.

What is the usual recourse of appeal on Wikipedia for edits, bans, conflicts, et al I might as well ask as I'm speaking to an admin now because I don't know how to contact yourselves if there's issue?

Any information you can provide would be appreciated.

Kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not think you're behaving with hostility toward CeltBrowne, and you may think that CeltBrowne's reverts of your significant undiscussed edits that removed references and arranged the articles to your liking are some kind of attack. To me, who noticed the aggressive edit summaries, it looks quite different. If you go on attacking other editors like that, here or anywhere else, you are liable to be blocked, at first for a short time, but increasing if your behavior doesn't change. We don't tolerate that kind of conduct. Going on to assert an assumption of bad faith toward CeltBrowne, and then toward me, {"Is he a friend of yours?' I've never interacted with them). And then citing personal experience ("first hand witness" is valueless on Wikipedia, we go by published sources, not your perceptions), Everything must be verifiable to reliable published sources, not how an individual editor perceives something or analyzes it.

Everybody needs to be aware of their own POV and edit accordingly. You have a POV, whether you think so or not. You have made substantial changes to longstanding referenced content without discussion, leaving only aggressive edit summaries,. That's a significant problem. You could expect to be reverted by anybody for those reasons alone, and would have no recourse, because you made no effort to find agreement or consensus. Based on your other edits, you look like you could be a valuable editor once you accustom yourself to the Wikipedia editing ethos.

If you need an administrator, the quickest way to get attention is to go to WP:ANI. It's also a quick way to forcibly discover you're in the wrong, because if you had gone to ANI with your present complaint, there's a good chance that you'd already be blocked for assumptions of bad faith, undiscussed removal of sourced content, and personal attacks. Administrators deal with behavior, and are not arbitrators of content. "The other editor is wrong" is a very bad strategy. The first, least patient admin is all it takes. Use the article talkpages to politely explain what you want to do, and why, with appropriate sources. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did leave one comment at Talk:Irish slaves myth, but did not wait for discussion or provide reliable sources to back up your concerns, it was framed as a complaint rather than as a constructive response to the sourced article subject. You didn't even do that much at the other articles. Your talkpage comment has been responded to by another editor with essentially the same concerns that CeltBrowne had. You should take that seriously. I will not hesitate to place sanctions if you treat other editors as opponents again. This is a collaborative project. Acroterion (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aye,

I then left them on the other one's tbh I forgot I had added that when I started editing.

P.s thank you for the information provided.

K.R.

MRWH359 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy,

Thats fair enough I'll take on board what you said there.

K.R.

MRWH359 (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you're already at ANI. Good luck. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the heads up, I've added my piece.

kind regards,

MRWH359 (talk) MRWH359 (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice - the fewer words the better at ANI, with a focus on acceptance of other editors as peers, and a commitment to learning and moving ahead. As other editors have observed, "It's not hell, but you can see it from there." It's very easy to dig a deeper hole for yourself with too much explanation and justification. Acroterion (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]