User talk:Baloopa33

Welcome!

Hello, Baloopa33, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to 2014 Scottish independence referendum does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media."

Indeed. I quote directly from the articles I cited:

"Scottish referendum: yes and no agree it's a once-in-a-lifetime vote

Both sides of the campaign have made it clear they will abide by the result, as political fallout from reneging would be significant" - Guardian

"Salmond: 'Referendum is once in a generation opportunity' SNP leader Alex Salmond has said the Scottish referendum is a "once in a generation opportunity".

Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum"

So what I said was absolutely true and verified by reputable sources. As I said on the page, if you continue to disagree, you are either thick or a liar.

2014 Scottish independence referendum

Your edit says "Both sides agreed that the result would be binding for a generation". They did no such thing. All that was said was that the referendum could be a once in a generation opportunity, because the political circumstances necessitating the first referendum may not recur.

By the way, accusing other users of being "thick or a liar" is no way of influencing people to agree with you. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other part of your edit, " so there will be no second referendum in the immediate future" violates WP:CRYSTAL. That's a prediction, not based on any established fact. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"All that was said was that the referendum COULD be a once in a generation opportunity.." (my emphasis)

No, that's a flat out lie. Let's look at what was actually said shall we.

"Salmond: 'Referendum is once in a generation opportunity'.."

Those words speak for themselves. The referendum IS a once in a generation opportunity, not COULD BE a once in a generation opportunity.

"Speaking to Andrew Marr he said that a simple majority, however close, would be accepted by both sides in the campaign"

This also speaks for itself. Salmond said that the result WOULD be accepted, not that it COULD be accepted. And finally:

"and there would be a "generational" gap before another independence referendum"

And yet another quote that speaks for itself. There WOULD be a generational gap, not that there COULD be a generational gap.

So we can clearly see that I am right and you are wrong. What both sides agreed was that there WOULD be a generational gap, not that there COULD be.

Oh and if you don't like being called either thick or dishonest, then I suggest you don't behave in a thick/dishonest way.

You should refrain from editing until you learn to be civil with other users who happen to disagree with your interpretations. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should refrain from editing until you learn to cite sources accurately.

I am reverting your terrible edit precisely because you are NOT citing sources accurately. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV apply. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? As I see it, you made a quite terrible argument that the sources said that the vote COULD be a once in a generational vote - and I have demolished that contention so thoroughly you aren't even trying to argue against it.

Edit warring

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. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. You've completely lost the argument, so now you're trying to win it by threat. So sad.

"Stop this nonsense, or you will be reported" sounds like a threat to me. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the difference sir is that, as we established above, my interpretation of the sources was right and yours was wrong. Thus, you were effectively trying to vandalise the page by removing accurate and sourced material. That is wrong and cannot be allowed to stand.

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. Thank you. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]