Jump to content

User talk:Westerhaley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, Westerhaley, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 11:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Operation Barbarossa 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.

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. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Blue Division. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your have now attempted to make the same edit several times and have been reverted by two separate users. Please explain your point of view on the talk discussion rather than attempting to push the change through. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Winston Churchill, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Refer to WP:BAREURLS and ensure that full details of the source are given per WP:CITE. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Winston Churchill, you may be blocked from editing. When you add a citation, do NOT leave a WP:BAREURL. Full citation details are always required per WP:CITE. This is the second time you have been told about this. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Derek Chauvin are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Röhm

[edit]

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).

To help move things along, I have started a discussion on the article talk page about the disputed edit, which you will find Talk:Ernst Röhm#A BOLD claim needs to be sourced. Please take the opportunity to make your views known there. It is best not to restore the material you added until there is a consensus among the editors there to do so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

[edit]

When adding a signature at the end of a comment, just add four tildes: ~~~~

Don't add brackets around them. Whether you're doing that manually, or have it set up in your preferences, you shouldn't add the brackets as it may cause problems with page archiving. If you have a look at the signatures of other users, compared to yours (for example, see: Talk:Operation Market Garden), you should be able to see what I'm referring to. - wolf 11:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ernst Röhm. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Turing shortened the war, so the statement by one man should not be in the lede. It is not in the main body of the article. The Allies would still have developed atomic weapons in 1945. (Westerhaley (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I am not interested in discussing here what has already been discussed on the article talk page, where the consensus is that a subject expert did indeed make that evaluation, so there is evidence in the form of his attributed statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Manhattan Project alone disproves the "subject expert"'s view. If Germany had not surrendered in May 1945 atomic weapons would have been used in Europe. (Westerhaley (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Consensus is otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fat Man and Little Boy would have been dropped on Germany. (Westerhaley (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
An editor agreed with my comments on Market Garden and added information from the source I suggested to show how it was a defeat for the western Allies. (Westerhaley (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with you that OMG was an Allied failure, but that's not the point here. The point is that you do not respect WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that the Blue Division was recalled due to US pressure on Franco, and that it remained as the 121st Infantry Division until March 1944. (Westerhaley (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Misleading and Disruptive edit descriptions

[edit]

So I've been reviewing several WW2 related articles and I found these edits: [2] [3] on the article on Winston Churchill with completely inaccurate descriptions when they are just grammatical changes that don't even make sense in neither British nor American English. This falls in direct violation with WP:UNRESPONSIVE and counts as WP:DIS. Not to mention you also edit warred with other users especially on the article on Ernst Röhm where there was persistent edit warring over unsourced material which violates WP:CONSENSUS. My main point is that you should tell the truth with your editing descriptions and discuss things with other users and follow WP:3RR so you don't get indef. blocked. Good Day to you — SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war in russia

[edit]

The Bolsheviks opponents in this war were the 'white russians'.They were made up of different groups who opposed the communist party dictatorship.They had a variety of different goals but all agreed on one important issue,which was to get rid of communist dictatorship 41.116.69.107 (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Westerhaley&oldid=1069082752"