User talk:Colonel Pritchard

Hello, I'm Viewmont Viking. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Viewmont Viking that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This personal attack and your edits to User talk:Viewmont Viking are beyond the pale. Additionally, Viewmont Viking was right to revert your edits. Original research is not permitted at all on Wikipedia. Any additions to the project must have citations to support it, and your edits had none. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. OhKayeSierra (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hickory Hill (Ashland, Virginia) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.

All of these supposed editors are the same annoying troll

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. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Colonel Pritchard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Colonel Pritchard (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Tiderolls 18:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The "editors" that keep maliciously deleting the text, are all one person, who seems to take glee in creating problems. He or she knows nothing of the property, while I have owned it, restored it and researched it for 20 years. He or she has simply used a bunch of different aliases to avoid the three edit rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Colonel Pritchard (talk • contribs)

That's an interesting accusation. What is your evidence that those three accounts are maintained by the same person? --Jayron 32 19:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The odds of several people deleting the same text, on a page that is rarely viewed, on the same day, in a short period, makes it mathematically impossible that they are different people.

It's not mathematically impossible once you were reported to WP:ANI, as you were notified above, where many people would have seen that the page needed help, and where multiple people would have pitched in to solve the problem. --Jayron 32 19:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, why would anyone who knows nothing about the property delete it?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Colonel Pritchard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here Colonel Pritchard (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Years of research went into writing this page, it is as accurate as I,a professional historian for 30 years, author of two published works on history, and hundreds of published articles, could make it. I have owned the subject property for 20 years. Then, a 'editor" who knows nothing at all about the property, deleted the text,simply to be malicious. So I put it back, then they deleted it. I wrote them, but they kept doing it. In order to avoid breaking the three block rule, they are using aliases to delete the text. It is in fact, they who violated the three block rule, but by using aliases they made it appear that I had. Hopefully, I have explained this in an understandable way.

So here's the thing, I would like to take your request seriously, and you may be making some good points, but I'm having a hard time getting past the repeated, obviously false accusations against three long-standing, very active Wikipedia editors with many years of experience here, are somehow the same person. Now, if you can stop doing that, and retract that obviously baseless accusation, we can talk about the rest of your concerns. --Jayron 32 19:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe it is possible (though I still doubt it likely) that they are not one and the same, I will be glad to delete my posts, but can you make him/her/ them stop deleting my work?

Look, I'm probably wasting my time doing this, but here goes. this user has had an account since 2012, has created about 3000 articles for Wikipedia, and has over 15,000 individual edits to articles. this user has been here 13 years, created 700ish articles, and has about 11000 edits. This user has only been here 2 years, but has also created about 3000 pages and has about 7000 edits. These were not created by one person to harass you. Trust me. Can we move on now? Are your ready to discuss the real problems here? --Jayron 32 19:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I deleted all of this as you requested and its back?

As a professional historian, you should be able to cite sources and to respect Wikipedia policies on sourcing. You should be well-acquainted with primary sources, the secondary sources that Wikipedia requires so we can verify the content and so that readers can pursue more in-depth knowledge through those sources, and the tertiary source that Wikipedia and other encyclopedias constitute. If you keep accusing everybody who advises you to cite secondary sources of being the same person when it's patently obvious they're not, we can't be of much assistance to you. Acroterion (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Colonel_Pritchard reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: ). Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it, do you?

Stop editing the article about your home. You are displaying a fundamental misconception about Wikipedia, treating it like Facebook or other social media. IT IS AN ARTICLE, IS NOT "YOUR PAGE". You have no special right or qualifications to that page. In point of fact, your edits are in violation of the Conflict of interest Policy. You claimed elsewhere to be "professional historian" yet you've shown no sign of professional historical standards. There's no sign of accuracy, verifiability, neutrality, or any indica of compliance with either general historical standards or with this project's core content policies. The text you keep re-adding is also suffused with Lost Cause sentimentalism. Continuing in this manner will guarantee that the next block you receive will be longer, if not permanent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under many misconceptions. You start off being incorrect, and never stop from first to last. You wrote: "Stop editing the article about your home" It is not my home. Hopefully you have the tiny, tiny bit of research skills to look at the county records and see that you are wrong. You should have looked before spouting off. That is just the beginning of your mistakes: For example, you wrote "professional Historian" in quotes, as though you don't believe it. Well google my name, Shannon Pritchard, and you will find articles, books, tv appearances, and lectures by and about me. So you were wrong. Then you wrote that I "show know signs of historical standards" Apparently you don't know historical standards. Then you wrote that my article "is also suffused with Lost Cause sentimentalism" Now I see why this is being cut, you are a liberal, and you can't handle the truth. You have my name, here is my contract to you. I will pay you $1000.00 for any thing that I have written that is not provably true, if you pay me $20.00 to look it up for you. You have now knowledge of what you speak, you simply stepped out of your mothers basement and tried to squelch my speech. Typical Liberal, the most intolerant among us. Then you wrote "there is no sign of accuracy" Well I will make you the same legal contract. I will pay you $1000.00 for any inaccuracy in my history (besides a typo) I will again take $20.00 to show you where you can find the info.

I don't expect you to take me up on my offer, your kind never do. But nevertheless, I offer it as a legally binding contract.

Now stop deleting my work. You know nothing about Hickory Hill, and you are not willing to take the time to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Pritchard (talk • contribs) 12:01, March 8, 2020 (UTC)

So, where you said above: "I have owned the subject property for 20 years", that was wrong? Is the factual inaccuracy here or in the statement above? What other factual inaccuracies are you making? The problem is that we don't and can't know because you won't comply with even the most basic of this site's core content policies. I could respond to your juvenile baiting but I won't If you want to be taken seriously, sign your own statements and actually present any source information for your statements. Nobody is obligated to do your work for you if you won't provide any sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did own it for twenty years,(really 19, I did round up) researching and restoring it to its former glory. We family moved out five months ago, and you will find a corporation owns it. No one alive knows more about it, and I went to a lot of trouble to share what I had learned, and then some know nothing basement dweller who is too lazy to do any actual research comes along a deletes it. I have been waiting patiently for one person on this to demonstrate that I have anything historically wrong. But no one does, they only complain about technicalities. There is a word for that: Martinet, and anyone wearing that label has been derided as fools since the beginning of time. But somehow this crowd seems to take pride in earning the title. I have tried to be reasonable and play nice, but martinets don't care about being correct, they only care about drawing attention to themselves to pump up their petty little egos.

I offered my work to you free of charge, (I usually get paid for research and writing) but your petty little egos must have it "your way"  Well screw you, you may not publish my work. See if you ever get it done so well again. You wont.

March 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing from certain pages (Hickory Hill (Ashland, Virginia)) for Until you start learning to collaborate with others and build a consensus, you don't need to be editing this page with such an obvious WP:COI..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are funny, do you think anyone that has a real life gives a rat's behind if OH MY GOSH wikipedia blocks them? Only you basement dwellers do, get your own article you liberal toad.