User talk:Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken

Welcome!

Hello, unpronounceablename, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay, rent is cheap, so maybe I will stay, idk. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
Don't click here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 22:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning, what you are about to see is rated 18+

Nomination of Series of events that led to the separation of New Spain and the rest of Hispanic America, as well as Brazil, from Spain and Portugal for deletion- I'm open for suggestions of a better name.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Series of events that led to the separation of New Spain and the rest of Hispanic America, as well as Brazil, from Spain and Portugal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of events that led to the separation of New Spain and the rest of Hispanic America, as well as Brazil, from Spain and Portugal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mccapra (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

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. MrOllie (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that we should clear it up in talk, which is why I have being engaging there. The person who reverts washout addressing it prior is you, and as I said in my revert, you're welcome to use talk to sort it out. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. The latest talk page comments are all from me. MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, just check the time, you revert first, then comment. That's not how it should be done, and if you are able to see your replies, I'm sure you can see mines Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly this is complete nonsense. You literally just put this message in here after I requested the same thing, for you to treat the matter in talk prior to reverting, which to be honest given the fact that you are not giving any factual reasoning behind it, seems to be personal. Do not engage any further with me, maybe you can explain directly to the people (you can clearly check their names in view history, obviously.) who accepted my edits why you are blanking the whole thing each time you see it. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you revert again, and then talk. Engage in conversation first, provide examples of the issues you see, then proceed to revert if not corrected, which, as anybody can tell by you recent action which is revert an article with no sustained reason at all, and then post this in my talk page, which ironically is the same thing I just requested you to in the article. I will revert it one last time. Next time you engage with it make sure to explain why you are blanking it to the users who accepted it as well. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not required to edit in the exact order you prefer. On the other hand, you are required to comply with Wikipedia policy, particularly WP:NOR and WP:V. If you revert this 'one last time' you'll be in violation of the 3RR rule and you'll probably be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see where I said that I want you to edit in the order I prefer, it's the order the message you ironically posted in my talk page after I made the exact same request to you, enunciates. So please, do give me examples of things you said are unsourced, and I will source them. That easy, last time I say it. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on the talk page, the whole thing is unsourced with the exception of a single date. MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Florida's colonization date? ah, maybe you should read the entire section you are reading to see that the literal Wikipedia pages linked in the paragraph describe what is being said. That's why it's linked. Name any, choose randomly, and it will be there. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself, see WP:RS. Even if it could, your edits would still be in violation of WP:SYN. MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of linking is to provide the possibility of expanding on what you read if you wish to do so. Wikipedians have done so for ages. Linking Wikipedia pages, in things they are summarizing, ordering, or exemplifying, which in many occasions do not require a source, because the same linked article, already has the sources that back it up, so instead of copy pasting the sources from the article you link, you just link it. This is no news and everyone in the wiki knows about it, checking your profile you have a history of doing this exact same thing to almost all cases you have attended. You should request a source, yes, of course, but if there's an article about it that explains and sources what you are saying, there's no need to copy paste the same sources from the article to another, you just link it as an expansion of what you are saying, it's been done since forever. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which in many occasions do not require a source - You have fundamentally misunderstood how Wikipedia is written. This same misunderstanding is also at the root of why other editors are voting to delete your other article. You must read WP:V, and WP:NOR thoroughly. If you have questions ask as WP:TEAHOUSE. You're new here and you clearly don't understand how things are done on this site. Please take some time to understand this rather than fighting with people and edit warring - you'll certainly be blocked sooner or later if you continue as you have been, and I think you could do good work on this project if you only slowed down and learned about this community's way of doing things. MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand how they are done around here. You can quote me saying whatever you would like, but the reason I said that is because of what you chose to omit, which I will say again: "which in many occasions do not require a source, because the same linked article, already has the sources that back it up, so instead of copy pasting the sources from the article you link, you just link it. This is no news and everyone in the wiki knows about it, checking your profile you have a history of doing this exact same thing to almost all cases you have attended. You should request a source, yes, of course, but if there's an article about it that explains and sources what you are saying, there's no need to copy paste the same sources from the article to another, you just link it as an expansion of what you are saying, it's been done since forever." Give me an argument for that, not just a sentence you chose to highlight without including it's context. As an addon to this, tell me, haven't Wikipedians done exactly, what I'm explaining and innumerable amounts of articles have applied it?

And as for the article I'm creating, no, if you read that's not the reason they want it deleted. What they say can be summarized in "But Spanish wars of independence article exists, why this article? I cant understand the point enunciated in the title" And I have already replied to that close to 6 times if I'm not mistaken, sadly the same thing over and over because there's an impediment on people to read what others have already said and not ridicule themselves by arguing the same thing, that was already addressed. And by the way, the article I'm making has close to 20 sources, sources that are there because obviously they are required to identify what is being said, and also because the other articles of the mentioned event do not mention the new information added, which requires, in consequence sources. The ones that can be verified by clicking in the linked articles which have the sources of the claims, are not sourced redundantly (copy and pasting a source from a linked article to your edit) because the linked article already had the sources, that's why the same sources are not copy and pasted, and instead the article who amplifies on what you are saying, explains it and has them specifically noted for what you say, are linked. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're in WP:IDHT territory now. You cannot simply add a link to another Wikipedia article in lieu of a source. And you cannot combine sources to make a point that none of those sources make individually (WP:SYN). This is very basic stuff on Wikipedia, and you will not be successful here until you understand this. If you don't believe what I am telling you for some reason, I encourage you to solicit additional input at WP:TEAHOUSE. I am very confident that they will tell you exactly the same things I am telling you. I won't be commenting on this thread any further, feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go for a walk in random articles present in recent changes or, if you wish, use the randomizer. You will see everyone has been doing what I've said, many consider it redundant, it's not just me doing so, and I see why they do it, and it's understandable. Since you have eagle eyed the Americans article against the practice a lot of members do here in Wikipedia (since a long long time a go), I'll, at some point, add the sources instead of linkage even though there are already in those articles, and yes, they are specifically referred to. Have a good day. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Directed by Robert B. Weide music plays in the background...... 6 hours later:

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Americans. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, honestly I didn't intend to send that edit, it was my pc that as soon as I turned it on sent the edit which had been idling in my pc for like 5 hours after this stuff I already said what I was going to do, that edit was just idling and I forgot about it's existence, which was made prior to the talk here. So I undid it snce I'm going to keep my word. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it apparently didn't manage to get undone, now it's. Which is alright given that was my intention anyway. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you cancel discarded edits before you go AFK!

Oh hi, I see you scrolled to the end, what's up?

They just couldn't stand well sustained responses:

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, I got blocked because those users couldn't accept an article that is correct:

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]