User talk:Saxon celt

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Saxon celt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon celt, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Saxon celt! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021[edit]

Hi Saxon celt! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Edward Dutton (anthropologist)‎ that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Edward Dutton (anthropologist)‎, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Edward Dutton (anthropologist). There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content[edit]

Please stop removing sourced content on Edward Dutton (anthropologist) and Mark Collett. If you have a dispute take it to the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Edward Dutton (anthropologist)‎ for a period of 3 months for persistent edit warring to remove well-sourced content at the article. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 11:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, that would actually have been a good measure if it had happened. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, I guess it would. But it looks like the user thought it had happened, so it worked after a fashion. Bishonen | tålk 08:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Ah – I had misread this somehow, Bishonen. A sitewide 3-month block, I thought. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hamish Watson (rugby union). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. These two edits[1] clearly misrepresented the source. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing with regards to my recent input on Wikipedia and in particular the comment “white supremacist” in the lead discription of Dr Edward Dutton.This pejorative term is not only defamatory but misleading. Dutton does refer to findings on genetic ethnic differences in his published work but is clearly explicit on variances which reflect positively on other ethnic groups precluding Europeans. This inherently contradicts the said lead title which is why I am disputing it. I am saddened that you insist on this terminology and would also point out categorically, that I had no input on this matter today and conclude that others also feel the need to repudiate the title. Saxon celt (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced content[edit]

At Derek Johnstone . See WP:VERIFY. I see you've been blocked from editing one article today. Looking at your talk page and edits, you are heading for a complete block, especially due to your edits to WP:BLP articles. See the alert below. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 14:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Riddoch[edit]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Lesley Riddoch, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Adakiko (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Giles Coren. 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. Adakiko (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make unexplained changes to information on Wikipedia, as you did at Newsmax TV. Using a lot of big words and flowery language to hide clear vandalism will not work. I see your history of conflict here and advise you to stop, now. Nate • (chatter) 21:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The paragraph has been supported by a source for months and has been drive-by reverted and restored for the same amount of time. I know WP:N left to right, and it's supported. Nate • (chatter) 22:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam, with regards to Newsmax headline material, it is wholly inappropriate to insist on such a subjective and controversial item when describing a news media which covers such a broad array of topics. Any established media outlet would not countenance this and would take legal proceedings accordingly. Wikipedia’s neutrality must keep within the remit of all users in order to maintain functionality and I can assure you that any legitimate arbitration would not find any case in your favour. Saxon celt (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First...pronouns are right on my userpage. Second, it isn't controversial; they denied the results of the election far long than any other news organization outside OAN and propagated those claims, and no amount of showing off that you were the top student in your Advanced English class is going to remove that from the lede. It is well-sourced, and removal of it from the page further will likely result in a block. Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are NOT denying anything, they are telling the truth and you know, and I hope Newsmax sues you and all of Wikipedia for constanly accusing them of fake news (which they do not do)! Now stop with the "well sourced" lie, stop attacking conservatives, stop reverting the Newsmax TV page, and leave us alone! 2600:1004:B043:F1F8:71E6:C3A9:E00C:148 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at David Coburn (politician). Adakiko (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]