User talk:Shakeslemon

April 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gareth Jones (journalist). 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. Softlavender (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

Hello, Shakeslemon, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections.

You seem to have edited under the account Shakesapple prior to the creation of this account. You need to declare your previous account on your userpage, and make sure that you do not use that account further, to avoid being sanctioned for sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Softlavender, thank you for your message. Yes, I did originally sign up with the username Shakesapple but when, after a period of absence, I came back to edit on Wikipedia, for reasons I do not undertstand, I was unable to log in with the password I had originally used. When I tried to reset the password, it refused to recognise the email address I had originally used and so I had no option but to start the whole process again and sign up again. Wikipedia wouldn't allow me to use Shakesapple as it was already taken - by me! But the wouldn't let me log in and just sent me round in circles. Wikipedia, as they will see if they area bale to look at their logs, gave me no option but to set up a new account As far as I can see the cause of the problem was Wikipedia, not me. I have no interest whatsoever in "using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia", have nothing to hide and have no issue whatsoever with declaring the previous account which when I've finished here I will happily do. Clearly if I'd had any interest in "misusing" accounts I wouldn't have used such a similar username. If there's a way I can go back to using the much wittier original username please let me know! Regardless, and I'm not sure if raising this issue is a way of you avoiding answering my question, but you don't seem to answered my question. Here it is again...

"Hello there, please explain how this is vandalism? It is true that the Vice Consul who invited Jones was Oscar Ehrt. It is true that his son Adolf Ehrt, was at the time one of Germany's chief propagandists, if not the chief one, in spreading anti-Soviet propaganda about the famine and would very soon after become head of the Anti-Komintern. It is true that without the invitation from Adolf Ehrt's father Jones would have been unable to make his trip to Ukraine and witness the famine conditions that he did. The invitation was vital in helping bring about Jones' exposé. Jones publicised for humanitarian/ journalistic reasons what the Nazis wanted to publicise for propaganda reasons, but were reluctant to publicise themselves for diplomatic reasons. May I suggest that is the removal of these salient facts, without which it is not possible to fully understand the story, that is the real vandalism? Save for a valid explanation on your part, in the interest of truth, I believe they should be replaced. I look forward to your reply. "

Presumably, if you do not reply, or are unable to answer the question, that implies that there was nothing wrong with my original edit and it should be replaced. I sincerely believe, for the reasons explained, it should be. Shakeslemon (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the message on your userpage. If you can please go back and edit it and put the previous username in the correct field, that will allow people to check the previous account. I answered your question 15.5 hours ago at the location you posted it. Please do not copy discussions and post them elsewhere; keep them where they originated. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you for your reply. I have put the previous username in th correct field now (I think!). Thank you for answering the question and apologies if I misinterpreted it. I'm afraid I didn't understand your comment, "Please do not copy discussions and post them elsewhere; keep them where they originated." If there's something else I need to correct, or move, please do let me now. Shakeslemon (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated posting of clearly POV and agenda-driven negative text in the same articles[edit]

Your two registered accounts and all of your IP editing as well have done hardly anything on Wikipedia except post clearly POV and agenda-driven and poorly cited negative material and speculations about Gareth Jones (journalist), and edit-warring over these posts. If you continue along this line, you will very likely be reported to an administrator's noticeboard and likely be barred from editing that subject matter, or be given a full block of any or indefinite duration. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]