User talk:HudsonValleyHistorian

So you decided to try editing

Hi. I noticed your edits on the Alexander Hamilton article. That article is already rated GA so the assumption is that it can't be improved by new editors. For that reason, I was concerned with your neophyte efforts. Please take time to learn Wikipedia and get a coherent strategy together. I'm also concerned about your username. While you're welcome to express interest in subjects, please remember that everyone here no matter their real-world profession is just a dilettante on this website. You can expect to receive push back by any sort of editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Shearonink (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, HudsonValleyHistorian. You have new messages at Talk:Alexander Hamilton.
Message added 02:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines etc

I appreciate your zeal in editing but - per WP:TPO - please try not to move other editors' posts on talk pages. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edits

Your recent editing history at Alexander Hamilton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2018 (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:HudsonValleyHistorian reported by User:Lwarrenwiki (Result: ). Thank you. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the report as "no violation", but it was a near thing. Please be careful with reverts going forward. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, going forward I will be more careful. I knew about the 3RR. The 2nd RV was purely to maintain the last revision of the page while consensus was reached on the talk page. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally not a good reason to revert. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Alexander Hamilton, you may be blocked from editing. We discussed the matter on the talk page. The consensus view was implemented. You have no business changing the article to suit your whim. You can be blocked if you persist. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a warning above from administrator @SarekOfVulcan: you have continued making similar contentious edits and reversions, contrary to consensus, at Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Aaron Burr, and James Madison. See Talk:Alexander Hamilton and Talk:Woodrow Wilson#Princeton. You also made (and to your credit, promptly reverted here}) a personal attack on another editor. A pattern of persistent edits/reversions against a consensus is often considered vandalism. 13:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Once again this is a one-sided assessment of the dispute. I have consistently used the talk page and asked Lwarrenwiki not to change College of New Jersey (official name of Princeton pre-1896) to a nickname at the time "Princeton". I did not make a personal attack on the editor (Lwarrenwiki) – I simply implied that if she had sentimental value to the institution she should put it aside. I understand, the Alexander Hamilton consensus and that has now been implemented on that page, however, there is no consensus on the James Madison, Aaron Burr or Woodrow Wilson pages regarding alma mater. I have used the talk page consistently to flesh out this issue before making any edits on the article as can be seen here and here. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was no prior discussion of the matter at those pages, but there was consensus. Consensus is what existed prior to your edits. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."

Also, you've incorrectly assumed my gender. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, @Lwarrenwiki:, the "consensus" – if you wish to refer to it as so – was to note Burr and Woodrow's alma mater as "Princeton University" (same goes for Madison, see previous revisions). According to everything you've said, "College of New Jersey" was more commonly known as "Princeton College" and individuals who attended "College of New Jersey" did not attend "Princeton University" but rather "Princeton College" or "Princeton". So you too are culpable of making edits contradictory to the consensus. I think we can both agree that Aaron Burr, James Madison, and Woodrow Wilson did not attend "Princeton University" given it wasn't given that name until 1896 and additionally because the concept of a "University" in the United States didn't exist until the early 19th century. So please clarify your logic and make edits consistent with that logic. HudsonValleyHistorian (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Welcome, relax, cuddle up to a kitty, and you will feel better. No need for drama or stress. Be the edit, live the edit, it will all work out. WP:AGF. i do.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen Don't you feel silly? Being friendly with a sock? Assume bad faith. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I sincerely applaud 7&6's kitten gesture and assumption of good faith. But for myself, I do feel a little silly. I've initiated enough SPIs that I should have guessed Hudson was somebody's sock, after his side of the discussion at Talk:Woodrow Wilson#Princeton degenerated to the point where I gave him the last word and walked away. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes are part of the human condition. That's why they put DELETE BUTTONs on computers. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]