User talk:Berserk Kerberos

Welcome

Hello, Berserk Kerberos, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Berserk Kerberos, good luck, and have fun. Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to users who provide references and in-line citations and remove unverifiable information. Thank you very much for your work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop...

Continually adding the same information about Rollo to all sorts of articles that it doesn't belong on. It's undue weight. Also - it's sourced to tertiary sources - please see WP:TERTIARY to learn about proper use of sources. And when an addition is reverted from an article, per WP:BRD, the best practice is to discuss on the talk page the addition, not to repeatedly restore it without discussion. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ealdgyth; please discuss your edits if others revert you. You may also want to read WP:3RR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring....????

Your recent editing history at Richard I of Normandy 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. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is also occuring on other pages, including William the Conqueror. You really need to stop spamming this information all over and start discussing on talk pages. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reaching out to me. I must, however, make it clear that i have no intention to start an edit war. what i'm trying to do is add the missing parts. rollo accepted the peace deal proposed by charles the simple not because he was simply bribed with land and women, but because some of his fellow warriors were defeated by Robert I of France. besides, i must quote norman french instead of norman language. otherwise readers will mistake norman language for an independent language unrelated to french. norman french itself better expresses that it's a dialect of french. last but not least, at the end of the rule of RIchard I of normandy, all viking settlers became essentially frenchmen. everything i write on wikipedia is backed with academic citations. i don't simply put what i think is right. i put what is supported with academic sources. i want to show to readers the whole picture of the topics mentioned above

and please stop blaming me for 'spamming'. as i said, all my points are backed by academic sources which shouldn't be ignored or deleted. although i only quote english-speaking citations, that doesn't mean i'm pro-english or pro-anglo saxon. quite to the contrary, i'm confident in objectiveness of english-speaking academia

Hi; thanks for responding. You can sign your posts by putting "~~~~" after them; it will automatically add your user name.

The problem is that others editors don't agree with you. It's fine to make the initial change, as you did, but once somebody disagrees with you and changes it back, the next step is to discuss the change with the other editors and try to come to a consensus on what works best for the article. If instead you just make the change again, as you've been doing, that's an edit war -- you say you've no intention of starting an edit war, but that's what's happening. There are (at least) three editors who have concerns about whether your changes are beneficial, so your edits are not going to stick until you convince them you're right and they're wrong. The best place to do that is not here, but on the talk page of the articles involved, since the justification is likely to be different for each article.

I suggest you stop re-inserting this material, pick one article and make the case on that article's talk page, and then see if you convince others. If so, the change can be made, and you can move on to the other articles.

Please take the warnings above seriously; if you repeatedly re-insert material without discussion, there's a good chance you'll get temporarily blocked from editing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. however, i find it totally unacceptable.

First of all, i didn't start the edit war. as you said, they deleted my paragraphs in the first place. so i feel very very safe that i didn't start an edit war. please stop framing me for this. seriously i'm not happy with it. all i wrote was supported by academic sources, so i can never accept that they deleted my works simply because they don't disagree with it. i struggle to understand why they think they are fit to do so.

With regards to Richard the Fearless, all vikings became essentially frenchified during the end of his reign. and this is not my imagination. this is listed in Cambridge History.

Regarding Norman Conquest of England and william the conqueror, Norman French should be worded or otherwise readers will misunderstand that norman language is an individual one. it's not easy to understand relationship between gallo-romance, langue'oil etc. the term norman french can help readers easier to reach to the point. and Rollo's baptism must be detailed or readers may think that charles the simple simply brided the vikings with land and women. but historically speaking this wasn't the case.

I'm expecting a DETAILED explanation of your decisions. (and that doesn't mean i would necessarily accept it). i hope personal references are not one of the criteria of writing an article on wikipedia. i don't cater to particular individuals. i write to show the readers the whole picture.

Whether or not you find it acceptable, or whether you are happy over it, is really beside the point, it is how Wikipedia works. Anyone is free, even encouraged, to make a change - WP:BOLD. However, once that change is reverted, a different policy kicks in, WP:BRD, short for Bold, Revert, Discuss. In practice, once you are Bold and make a change, if someone Reverts your change, then the appropriate way to resolve the dispute is to Discuss your change on the relevant Talk page. Failure to do so, simply again and again remaking the change (or a very similar change) is edit waring, and that is what you did in the face of reversions by three different editors. The burden is on the person wanting a change to convince other editors to acquiesce, and that is done on the Talk pages of the articles. By the way, the rule about edit waring says you shouldn't do it, but one manner of enforcement is the policy WP:3RR, which prohibits editors from making substantially the same edit to a page more than three times in 24 hour period - this is a bright line, and its violation, if reported, usually earns the violator a suspension from editing.

Regarding the specific information, the reason for reverting was somewhat different on the three pages, as explained in the edit summaries and Talk page discussions, but in each case was a valid reason for objecting to your change. There are more considerations than just whether or not there is a source. On the William the Conqueror page, the primary objection is that the page is about William the Conqueror, making the details of what happened at Chartres with regard to his great-great-great-grandfather extremely tangential to the article's subject (any information about Rollo beyond the bare minimum needed to establish the context of the Norman state should go on Rollo's page, not William's). In the case of the Richard I article, there were two problems raised by different editors. First, is that the addition was WP:UNDUE - a single source making a claim that is not found in other sources about the subject should not be given such prominence. Likewise, there was a problem with the actual syntax, the way the source was referred to in the test. On the Rollo page, it was because it duplicated material already elsewhere in the article, and the source was not as high quality as those already cited for the incident. All of this can be worked out on the respective Talk page, where just as it falls on you to discuss your additions, it falls on those reverting to discuss their problems with your text. In each case, a reverting editor did exactly that, beginning a thread on the Talk page about your edits, in which you have yet to participate. Agricolae (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your detailed reply. i must repeat again and again that i'm not the one who started the edit war. and briefly stating why rollo agreed with baptism doesn't seem to be in conflict with any set of rules on wikipedia. please reflect on whether you've interpreted the rules properly or not.

briefly speaking, i don't know why other editors think my carefully worded paragraphs are not of good quality. i think this is hilarious because i just found out that a paragraph supported with academic sources can be regarded as 'not good enough'. i'm curious that on what basis the editors review articles on wikipedia.

regarding richard 1 of normandy, the source i quoted is from cambridge university press. i think it's credible and trustworthy. with all due respect, i'm wondering if the other editors's (personal) opinions can be better than academic findings done by cambridge.

concerning the use of terms 'norman french', as i repeated so many times, this is by itself also an accurate term to describe the language of normans without tricking the readers into thinking that it's an independent language. i INSIST that it must be displayed on both 'norman conquest of england' and william the conqueror.

To repeat, an edit war starts when a reverted edit is reinserted, when an editor insists on their change in the face of continued opposition rather than discussing it on the Talk page - you did that. You say there are no rules against the text you want to include, but the three separate disputes are not for the most part about rules, but rather whether the articles are better with your information presented the way you presented it, or not. Where the rules come into play is how you are going about trying to make your changes, not in the content itself. Regarding Richard I, the text was not disputed over the quality of your source, but about two separate issues. First, whether a specific claim found only in one source is worthy of mention in an article. No matter the quality of the publisher, it may simply represent one scholar's opinion, and thus care is required in deciding whether to include it. The second objection was about syntax - the sentence itself, in its various iterations, had problems in the way it was expressing the information, ranging from ~~using an Arabic rather than Roman numeral to refer to Richard, to~~ (I was confusing disputed edits - this was an error on the Rollo edit regarding Robert I.) the random nicknames interjected into a statement that wasn't really even about Richard but about his subjects, to referring to volume and chapter numbers in the text, none of which is in the style that is typical. None of this is addressed by arguing about the quality of your source. Insisting about Norman French carries no further weight than asserting, desiring, wanting, vaguely favouring, having a hankering for, or expressing your preference in any other manner, nor is that preference made more persuasive by bolding it. Resistance is best overcome by persuasion, not emphatic demands that you absolutely must have it your way (which smacks of WP:SOAPBOX mentality). Regarding Norman French, the objections may have nothing to do with your position on the use of Norman French vs Norman language, because in each case you combined the changes to that phrasing with other substantive changes to other parts of the article. When a complex edit affecting several different aspects of an article is reverted, the objection may have nothing to do with the one specific change you feel strongest about, it being simply easier to revert the lot than parse out the individual changes. One can find out which change is primarily being objected to by discussing it on Talk, which you seem unwilling to do, or by making single specific changes, one at a time, allowing a chance for response or objection in between. Insisting about Norman French may be missing the point of the reversions entirely. Agricolae (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berserk Kerberos, just a short note to agree with Agricolae -- if information is correct that doesn't automatically mean it belongs in every related article. That's a question of judgement, which can require us to look at multiple sources for comparison, or to determine the appropriate level of detail for each different article. Because the edits you made were reverted for slightly different reasons at each article, it's not much use posting notes here -- to convince other editors of your point, you need to post at the talk page of those articles and engage the other editors. Ideally everyone reaches a consensus on the best way to improve the article. You'll find going to the article talk pages much more productive than simply repeating your edits, and being repeatedly reverted. And when you post, please add ~~~~ after your post so it signs your name -- otherwise it's harder for other editors to know who is saying what. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s not about the rules now huh? I think you all should learn to put aside your self-ego and learn to accept different opinions. Try to see things from a different perspective. Norman French must be stated in both articles ‘norman conquest of England’ and ‘william the conqueror’. A normal person without in depth knowledge of linguistics can hardly understand the relationship between ‘gallo-romance’, ‘langue d’oil’ and ‘norman language’. In fact I once worded ‘Norman language / Norman French’ but still this phrase was deleted.. I find it weird that you prefer to confuse readers than directly point out what language they spoke. Readers must know that normans didn’t speak norse, swede or dane. They spoke a dialect of French. And I must state again reason of why rollo accepted the peace deal must be stated, or they mistake norman conquest of England for another Viking invasion.

With regards to Richard I the fearless, NONE of you can show me another scholar’s opinion which doesn’t agree that the Vikings were yet to be frenchified at the end of his rule. Obviously my sources are not what you all prefer, but again this is insufficient to have my sentences deleted. Please understand that what’s written by Cambridge university press is different from youtube comments. The former is peer reviewed, carefully examined and objectively edited. This is exactly what Wikipedia’s supposed to be.

I wish that you all can stop being fiercely opinionated, we’re living in internet age. We have to be open minded rather than biased.

If you make your case on the article talk pages you'll get a response there. Here is not the place, because as Agricolae points out there are different questions for each article. Ealdgyth, who is one of the editors who disagreed with your edits, understands very well what makes a source reliable and will not be citing youtube if she continues to disagree with you. And please sign your edits if/when you post on article talk pages! Otherwise nobody can tell who is saying what. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as i said in my first response, i don't pleasure a certain group of people. i know the topics of what i'm editing very well. i read all sources i quoted. i strongly advise you to not force me to yield. this is tantamount to censorship. i don't give in to censorship. Berserk Kerberos (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about forcing someone to yield. It is about the way Wikipedia works. When an edit is contested, it is expected that the people involved will discuss the edit and reach a consensus that both can live with (and is consistent with policy). There are places on the internet where people can contribute personal writings without the need to accommodate the preferences of others, but Wikipedia is not such a place. It is collaborative and works on consensus. And as Mike Christie and I have both pointed out, your Talk page is not the place to discuss the specifics of complex multi-part edits to multiple pages that each have had distinct objections raised. The place for each separate article's discussion is on the Talk page of that article. Agricolae (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why? Why? do you absolutely refuse to discuss your desired changes on article Talk pages? Agricolae (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i've stated my reasons for changes relating to the usage of the term'norman french', an event that led to Rollo's baptism, and additional info. of Richard 1 of Fearless. but it seems like none of you have read through my previous explanations. i want to talk things out, but first read again my responses. also i don't upload personal things. i share academic contextBerserk Kerberos (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you just fundamentally do not understand what you are doing wrong, or if you are acting in bad faith, but either way explaining it yet again here is unlikely to change the situation. If you are ever willing to discuss specific edits on the respective article Talk pages, you know where to find them. Agricolae (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I write every sentence with prudence. i select every academic proof carefully. but other 'editors' delete my works within minutes on average. evidently no one has ever read through changes i made, no one has had a glance at citations i quoted. i am definitely not the person who shows mala fides here.Berserk Kerberos (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The advice and suggestions you are getting from me and Agricolae are intended to help you become a productive editor here. We are familiar with the policies and know how to get changes made in cooperation with other editors, using reliable sources to improve articles. Your responses have been various versions of "I'm right". If you don't want to take our advice, I don't think you'll have a very rewarding time editing Wikipedia; if you do allow the possibility that we're actually trying to help you, and if you engage with other editors instead of constantly asserting they're wrong without conversation, you'll find editing here a much less frustrating experience. I have to say that unless you show some indication that you are willing to actually talk to me, rather than assert you're right, I'm going to stop posting here, as it seems pointless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i'm helping to improve the quality of articles on wikipedia. but you and other editors delete what you consider is inappropriate. i strongly suggest you to read what i write first. as i said, i don't pleasure a certain group of people. i'm willing to talk if and only if you can throw away 'you must be wrong' mentality. Berserk Kerberos (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

discussions about article content go on the talk page of the article. That is so all interested editors can discuss changes. User talk pages like this are for discussing user behavior. And I strongly suggest that discussion begin about the article content on the article talk pages, because you are indeed edit warring and not taking on board the helpful advice you’re receiving. --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berserk Kerberos, on Wikipedia we work by way of consensus. If there is one single editor who is being reverted by three other editors, and they keep on keeping on, that first editor is edit warring and editing against consensus. It is really that simple. As it happens, these editors are also quite knowledgeable, not just about Wikipedia policies (it's not about the rules), but also about the subject matter. If you don't want to "pleasure" a group of people, meaning you don't want to work toward a consensus (yes, it is certainly also your job to explain what you want on the talk page), then Wikipedia is simply not for you. The term "censorship" does not apply here: this is a private website whose rules are made by editors and by way of consensus. These editors here have shown buckets of patience already on this very page; they have given you as much or more time than some might think warranted.
In short, edit warring and refusing to seek the talk page, that is disruptive behavior, and it may lead to sanctions.
And now, looking at your edits, I see that the writing is not up to snuff and that the sourcing is below-par as well: no one should be citing history.com or ancient.eu, whatever that is, in important articles such as Rollo. And citing Brittanica.com and other tertiary sources is strongly discouraged. In my opinion, after looking at your latest flurry in the edit war, the editors are justified in reverting you and in calling in an administrator. Should they revert you and you continue this edit war without first seeking and then achieving a consensus on the talk page, I will not hesitate to block you. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And please make sure you are properly logged in while editing. Logged-out editing while engaged in an edit war is also blockable. I'm sure it was an accident, but please make sure it doesn't happen again. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't been mentioned before but also bears on the editing pattern. If an edit is disputed, one should reach a consensus first; one should not put the same disputed information onto other pages before the dispute has been dealt with on the first page. The same concerns likely apply no matter on which page it appears, and it is easy enough to see where it is being done, so nothing is to be gained by simply turning the whole exercise into a pointless game of whackamole rather than dealing with the issue. Agricolae (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

all articles published on history channel, anicent history encyclopaedia and britannica encyclopaedia are written by professors of history or historians. these sources are much better than, for instance, new york times. i feel very secure to say both are excellent sources.Berserk Kerberos (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also i'm so eager to know why my paragraphs pointing out historical inaccuracies of vikings tv series have been frequently deleted. i first wrote on the page of vikings (season 3). then an editor deleted my whole section on the basis that there's another main page about this topic. but strangely, i found a similar section in vikings (season 5). i'm wondering if double standard came into play. anyway i removed my paragraphs to vikings (tv series 2013) in which a section of such kind is allowed. and again, my words were deleted on the ground that my explanations were too detailed. i didn't know in the first place that everyone has to simplify the inaccuracies. but fine, i shortened my paragraphs but still all my words were deleted again for being out of proportion. however, another paragraph detailing inaccuracies of viking's religious practices remains untouched. please give me an explanation. as you all said. wikipedia is about consensus. as one of the editors, my consent also matters. my consent also carries the same weight.

anyway i always edit articles on wikipedia when logged in. i do sometimes edit articles on my phone but i also make sure that i stay logged in. but i promise i'll be more careful in the future. Berserk Kerberos (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mechanism for achieving consensus on Wikipedia is discussion on the Talk page for the article in question, something that you have been repeatedly encouraged to take part in and you still refuse to do. Agricolae (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kerberos. I think it is interesting that you say the following: "as one of the editors, my consent also matters". The thing about that is that if you tell five people to write an article about a certain topic, you will get five different articles. All five people will have a different idea of what should be in the article and what should be left out. When five people are working on a Wikipedia article together, it isn't much different. There will always be disagreement between editors. It is basically impossible for everybody to be on the same line. For this reason, the rule is NOT "all people working on the article have to agree with it". Instead, the rule is "if you have a disagreement with another editor, you go to the talk page of the article and have a discussion". If you don't participate in the talk page discussion, you have no voice in disputes and people will simply ignore your opinion. So in the future, when someone undoes your edit, hit the "Talk" button and make your case. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Viking-related articles

Hello Berserk Kerberos. You've been warned per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You are risking a block if you revert any of these articles again unless you have received a prior consensus on the talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Berserk Kerberos. My warning was issued on 7 March, and I notice that your conduct has again become the subject of complaint. See also this post to Drmies by User:Ealdgyth on 10 March. Mike Christie has said that you do "seem to want to help, though they are not in the least cooperatively minded". Your removal of Ealdgyth's post is blockable in its own right'. I am unsure whether a block is needed to persuade you to follow our policies. The most obvious grounds for blocking would be WP:NOTHERE. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi johnson i hope you're doing good. in fact i'm doing my best to be a helpful editor. however, i'm so bewildered that Agricolae keeps deleting my works for no reasons. first he / she said that my paragraphs were disputed by other editors but i checked out talk page and no one said anything about my words. the last messages of some talk pages dated back in 2018 or even 2015. second, i'm adding parts which is essential and there're separate pages briefing mentioning it. i'm just ensuring consistencies among pages. third, all sources i cite are recommended by university of michigan states, unviersity of oxford etc. they're reliable source. i hope nothing is personal.

Hello Berserk Kerberos. I'm now seeing this recent post of yours which indicates a serious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. You are arguing at Norman language against another editor (very experienced) who has a good underatanding of policy. He has complained about your WP:Original research about the Norman words, which you still are vigorously defending. You are substituting for his advice your own theory that French Wikipedia is a perfectly good source for the English Wikipedia. (Your belief is not correct). I would wait before issuing a block if I believed you were coming up the learning curve, but I fear you are going the other way. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i must make it clear that i also cite sources run and operated by University of Ottawa and University of Lorraine. also he doesn't seem to have sufficient knowledge of relevant topics. i'm so worried that readers are kept being misled that nordic influence over norman french is much greater than ancient french (which is not the case). and please tell me what to do in order to tell readers the truth without breaching your polities rather than threatening to block me. i suppose all language versions of wikipedia are run by same set of policies right? and i suppose french version isn't better than english version and vice versa. i'm just wondering why info. allowed to be shown on one version can't be shown on another, given that the info isn't personal imagination but supported by academia Berserk Kerberos (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also odo's success in defending paris has to be mentioned. the fact is rollo and other vikings attempted to siege and even capture paris. but they failed. then they tried to siege chartres but was again defeated. that's why rollo later agreed to settle down in normandy. it's cause and consequence. and i write both event within 200 words. i'm trying my best to make it brief. it's not like what agricolae said that i was being too detailed. Berserk Kerberos (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You first added the text to one page. When it was disputed, you not only edit warred there, you also added the same exact text, with the same disputed referencing, to a bunch of other pages (where in some cases it had the most tenuous relevance) without first resolving the original objections. If the sourcing was problematic on the original page where you put it, it is likewise problematic everywhere else. Don't turn this into a game of whack-a-mole where every time an objection is raised you move to a new page and claim there is no objection there - resolve the dispute where it is being discussed, first. Likewise, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be consistent in the sense that every single page in Wikipedia must specify that Odo defeated Rollo at Paris. The whole reason we have links between pages is so that every page does not have to provide the same historical factoid one particular editor finds interesting: we have pages that explain the viking siege of Paris in detail, so we don't need to add this exact same sentence to every single page that names Rollo. Agricolae (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you still fail to explain to me why sources recommended by unversity of michigan states, university of minnesota, university of oxford and most universities in the uk are problematic. i'm not turning it into a game of whatever you called. i'm adding the missing parts to all articles. as i said, consistency is important for the overall quality of articles on wikipedia. Berserk Kerberos (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is not the place. When you first made the edit in question, the issue was raised on the Talk page of that article. That is where it should be discussed. There is the Reliable Source Noticeboard, which discusses more general issues regarding source reliability (not related to individual edits, but one should not use it to bypass ongoing discussion - if taking a discussion there you should notify others already involved). On your User Talk page? Not so much. As an aside, though, saying a university 'recommends' a source is meaningless. There is no university committee that passes judgment on the appropriateness of sources for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its own policies and standards, and those are the basis for these decisions, not incongruous claims about universities. Agricolae (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also the sections of old norse words in norman french was supported by no citations. that part is much more problematic to me.Berserk Kerberos (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are agreeing that there is material on the page that is not up to snuff, and me adding a flag to the page was justified? Agricolae (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages again

One - per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines you should never remove other editor's comments unless they fall into a few very specific conditions, none of which this edit fits. Two - please learn to use WP:ES. Three - again, you are edit warring and having been warned already for this conduct, you're not likely to get off with a warning again. You need to discuss the contested content on the talk page of articles, not just edit war. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i agreed with you and did what you considered is right Berserk Kerberos (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}.

Continued edit warring on Viking-related topics; removal of other's talk page posts; failure to cooperate; insistence on your own strange misunderstandings of policy. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future, and will cooperate to reach agreement on any disputed matters. See above, #Edit warring on Viking-related articles for details and for links to previous discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i posted my questions. i wasn't given a clear explanation. then you block me. i have academic sources to support my paragraphs. then my paragraphs got deleted while those without citations remain untouched. i'm so impressed by how wikipedia works now. jolly good.Berserk Kerberos (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]