User talk:Bobby ronayne

Welcome!

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

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- WikHead (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Emancipation Proclamation. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was hoping Wikipedia would step in and stop it. Other Editors have been removing my additions while I have not removed anything. Please take a look and verify this. I truly hope you have sent the same message to the other editors as this is extremely annoying. I have not removed any work by other authors. Are you going to block me for not removing but trying to add my work while others are consistently removing my contributions because of their own biased views? Bobby ronayne (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne[reply]

Seriously my work was just removed again by user Rjensen Again please compare the Authority section with my work to that that without with Rjensen recently removed my work to verify if I had indeed removed others work or if simply mine had been removed. On the charge that my work is POV stating that Lincoln did not have Authority is a biased perspective. The work not mine which I did not delete either that was left by the user that deleted my work that Lincoln did have authority due to his having command of the military empose force I find more of a POV statement than my contributions that were removed. Please take a look. Bobby ronayne (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne[reply]

It's not for me to decide who is correct here. The other editors with whom you've been experiencing disagreement are longtime editors who know the rules. The normal procedure here is Bold, revert, discuss. You've edited boldly, they've reverted your additions, and now you're discussing. You should continue to discuss this disagreement in the appropriate section on the talk page. You would be well-advised to bring some sources to the table which support your position. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's not for you to decide, however you have confronted me with the threat of blocking me. I will continue to discuss with them however are you telling me I have to convince them to allow an alternative point of view to their own, and convince them not to delete and if I still disagree you enforce their bias by blocking me? The source they left and did not dispute has less sources than I provided. I had suggested leaving both as I had in my last edit before they were removed again however if the object is to convince the person I disagree with to allow an alternative view with sources I am not quite sure where to go from here Bobby ronayne (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne[reply]

Please stop re-adding contested material on the Emancipation Proclamation page. Your edits constitute edit warring. At least two editors disagree with your additions. You should be trying to establish consensus for your position on the talk page. Continuing on the course you've been charting will get you blocked, regardless of who is right and who is not. I am not an administrator, so I cannot block anyone, but I've warned you that continuing to edit in this manner on the pagespace will draw the attention of an administrator who will do so. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you posted this message before checking the latest status of Emancipation Proclamation page but I did not readd anything past your last message and still have not. Check it for yourself. Ive given up on the subject as I do not see the point of contributing time effort and sources to a page where sources not accepted are simply removed by elite users rather than allowing both to maintain their POV. A whole war was fought over in large part over the authority Lincoln had, so it does not surprise me that more than one person would show bias to the opposite POV. Respectfully, 166.32.77.154 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne[reply]

Edit warring at Emancipation Proclamation

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a suggestion

If you put something, anything, on your User Page then your name will appear as a blue link rather than a red one. Edits by editors whose names are red links serve as a sort of red flag to a lot of editors, including myself. Often reds come in a flurry, cause a big scene and then are never heard from again, leaving the editors who have frequently toiled on wikipedia for years with a suspicious attitude towards all reds. Consider giving it a try. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! I have edited Wikipedia here and there over the years but never knew how to join etc, much less was aware of the Culture. My favorite was correcting the history on the CSS Shenandoah which I have been researching since 2007 using previously rarely known sources.Bobby ronayne (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne[reply]

Culture indeed, though something more like a lack of it. Another tip is in a discussion such as ours, start your reply with a : or if it is a reply to a reply, two ::. This indents the various voices in the conversation, making it easier to follow. Stick around, get into the CSS Shenandoah and anything else that interests you. Follow links around, explore, edit a bit here and a bit there and you'll do just fine and wikipedia will be the better for it. Carptrash (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good tip! I appreciate your input. I wasnt sure I was going to stick around. Within a week of editing the Shenandoah Wikipedia page the google results of exact copies of my research which was previously 1 obscure return were two pages of results diluting my other finds and other finds were lost! It taught me that I wanted credit for that amount of work and discovery. I only touch Shenandoah material here now here and there to correct defamation to the officers honor until my discovery is complete but I cant help jumping in there now in again. At least thats the plan.Bobby ronayne (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne[reply]

My big interest is architectural sculpture, so although I created the article here, I only dabble in it, like you sitting on (for me) a quarter of a century's worth of gathered material that will most likely not appear on wikipedia. But there is always other stuff, pictures, little tangents that sort of thing, that allow me to improve wikipedia while enjoying myself. Because (opinion) it has to be fun or why do it? Nice intro to your self, and, congratulations, you are now a blue link. I will further suggest that you put some links on your user page, let the folks who venture there have easy access to what you find interesting. Carptrash (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1/4 century of research? WOW! I saw your entry on statues not to see on first dates. That's hilarious. The thing about opinion is any "fact" is opinion through the view of the interpreter. The rule here of using secondary sources seems a little nutty because then you have The Wikipedia editor's interpretation of Source writers interpretation of primary perspective of reality. Second generation opinion of a primary source's POV of what happened is considered more "reliable" than primary sources? Cant say I understand that, but it's not my show. I hope youre going to do something with that material like write a book or three. You dont have to tell me but do you plan on doing something where you get recognition for your findings? I hope to. Bobby ronayne (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne[reply]

My partner in the Guide to Architectural Sculpture in America and I tried to find a publisher, to no avail. We have something like 2,000 buildings researched, with bios on 200 sculptors, carvers and architects. We work on a wikipedia clone site somewhere down a one-way, dead-end alley of the world wide web. I might go back to my book about Corrado Parducci someday soon. I have a list of words and phrases on my page that I feel mean "in my opinion" and I tend to irritate folks in my world (such as my wife) just a bit by pointing them out. But don't get caught up in this sort of wikidrama too soon. And it IS your show as much as anyones, that is the wonder of wikipedia. However there are some land mines (perhaps water mines would be more compelling to you?) and you can either "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" or stop and survey the lay of the land for a bit. I recomend the latter. Carptrash (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like stuff right out of Indiana Jones. Are you familiar with the Cutty Sark? The last surviving Tea Clipper built 1869 in permanent drydock in the UK. It has a figure head that has been replaced on the bow. They still have the original one though but I think its been replaced for preservation probably around the 40s by a new one on the Bow. The official site used to have pictures of both figure heads but I dont see it now. It just reopened after restoration after the 2008 fire that almost burned it down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutty_Sark http://www.rmg.co.uk/Bobby ronayne (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne[reply]

It's tomorrow now, But when I get home I will look through my 'ship's figurehead books' (I think that I have two) and see if i can find anything. Carptrash (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Both my books are just about American figure head carvings. But you might find some kindred souls in the projects that this editor is involved in. User:Djembayz. Carptrash (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Im honored. Sorry for late responce a lot has been going on. My brother just got married and celebrating my birthday and other brothers birthday tonight. I am headed out to get another wedding gift. I was just making small talk on the figure head because although not a sculpture it was a carving that was part of the ship that has been preserved from 1869. Im assuming that date is right. Wiki says ship laid down 1869 and launched 1870. Also says last surviving Tea clipper ship thus my Interest. Shenandoah was a tea clipper. Anyway I thought it might be of interest to you. I could probably find pics although no longer on the Cutty Sark page that I can see right now. Bobby ronayne (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Bobby Ronayne[reply]