User talk:Cltjames

3RR

Just looked at th Glyndŵr page history, and if this [1] could be interpreted as a revert, I would suggest you self revert it quickly so you can avoid a breach of WP:3RR. The IP appears to be edit warring but would be a pity if you became collatoral damage. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy OK, thanks for the advice. The lede has been reverted. Besides, I did not exceed the 3 reverts, unlike user @2A02:8084:C542:A600:E4E7:F126:BA01:8334:. I have started a talk about the lede and the facts added these past few months about Glyndwr's ancestry. Feel free to join in. Cltjames (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your detailed work on Louis Rees-Zammit among many other articles. Red Director (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Red Director Thanks for the barnstar related to the Louis Rees-Zammit article. I've been working on and off on the article since before April for the past 5 months, and I have enjoyed learning more about his short but great rugby career and subsequent venture to play in the NFL. Cltjames (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madoc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hispania Nova.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrar Stadium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adrar Stadium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrar Stadium

The article Adrar Stadium you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Adrar Stadium for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie Ok, I've submitted a copyedit request as recommended to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Adrar stadium, thanks for the advice, I'll take it from there. Cltjames (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Do take a look at the edits I suggested to the first section. Between the dates not matching up and the copy issues, I realized this page needed much more attention than a nominee. And I'd love to offer advice again once the GOCE copyedit is done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 14:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie yes, I saw your suggestions and added them to the article, thanks. The only issue with a stadium in Morocco is that the number of references available is vague compared to stadiums in North America, for instance. So, that's about all I could come up with. But I'll wait to see what GOCE has to say before any more alterations are made. Cltjames (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Your recent editing history at Madoc 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; read about 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. Doug Weller talk 08:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I only reverted the whole article once, which is procedure. Then I re added what I felt was worthy, and that was 9,000 of 12,000. So really, my point is, the Madoc article is an unreadable mess and I was improving the article. I have posed questions in the talk, please reply there. Cltjames (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Twice in the last 24 hours. [2] and [3] Doug Weller talk 10:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Dafydd ap Gruffydd a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. —Alalch E. 22:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, exactly what I came to warn about. The cut and paste move has been reverted by the way. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh ok so, I tried to move and remembered why I moved the redirect with a copy and paste, that is because the article was already a redirect before I moved it there. So, really, I was simply creating consistency for the same family articles relating to the differences of the name Grufffydd/Gruffudd. Minor difference, I know, but a difference all the same. So, if it's ok, please revert or I should, unless if you can explain something. Otherwise, to avoid misspelling, the article should be Dafydd ap Gruffudd. Cltjames (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not okay to revert and continue to cut and paste to move pages @Cltjames. You should use the {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}} to tag the target page that you want to move the article to. You may also request a move at WP:RM/TR. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh ok sorry, thanks for your advice. I'll do that. Cltjames (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the key part and the reason we don't allow cut and paste moves is to preserve the page history. See WP:ATTRIBUTION. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

List of legendary rulers of Wales moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of legendary rulers of Wales. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because The page scope does not match the content and the article is poorly defined as a subject.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy OK, no worries. Without the correct book sources, there is nothing I can do. But I've gotten the ball rolling, @Ham II: and yourself, feel free to add to draft to get the work published, as it is a worthy article in the making. Cltjames (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. I think it needs a lot of work, but there is a subject there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia the right place...

You've been on Wikipedia quite a long time. But there's quite a lot you still seem to struggle with:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources - please exercise caution in using historical sources that are over 50 years old;
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - this forum is for behavioural issues, not content disputes;
• Peer review - this can be really useful for getting second/third/fourth opinions, but isn't some cadre of "super-editors" who decide on the "right" version;
• Consensus - the way we get to agree on an article version is through consensus, i.e. we discuss and reach a view. You made clear your view on consensus here; "It's just unfair how consensus isn't always the right answer, take Titus Gold: for instance, his was work good and correct, only to be dismissed based on an unfair trial." Fourteen editors came to a clear view on TG's edits, why do you consider that an "unfair trial"?

Speaking frankly, I think there may be other websites where you would find greater freedom to express your views. KJP1 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1 I appreciate your concern, but dont confuse ambition with rebellion, as I didn't break any rules! As for my track record, there have been only a few minor blips, which can be misconstrued as overambitious, e.g. Madoc is full of older sources, I just did a copyedit, besides, why did @Doug Weller: read and help edit my work for 2 weeks without concern... I'll answer myself; because it was a good tidyup and overdue! Otherwise, I will remember the ideology about older sourced materials. However, I have learned there is nothing wrong with a B article, and 'RS' can in some cases be ignored (if the only option), so maybe it is you who should ease off trying to perfect every article into an A grade.

As for @Titus Gold:, if he was so bad for the encyclopedia, then why is he having such a great success with articles for other Celtic nations, (which I've seen from his contributions), instead of Wales, he isn't giving up, and nor will I, as there's gaps in Welsh medieval history on Wikipedia, and I've enjoyed helping the Wikiproject Wales team and appreciate the support users such as @DankJae: has to offer.

I guess sorry for being overly enthusiastic and brash (@Richard Keatinge: I let emotions get the better of me sometimes), but I am learning from others' experience (this is why I didn't edit for over a decade of reading articles), and I have learned from my lessons. But I don't know what you expect me to say, KJP1, I'll leave it at that, because I'm not a quitter, I believe in redemption, especially when ones intentions are good. I enjoy working on Wikipedia and will continue to do so when I see a gap in the market. Then, I will try my best to improve the work, remembering that all my work is conducted in good faith, but sometimes the team is lacking the time or effort to coordinate to the standard I require, thus people choose the easy route out (revert) instead of giving full attention to the cause (my personal experience) by contributing, talking and taking time to study the subject; I mean there's no rush.

Thanks anyway for your advice, but I'm not leaving anytime soon. Good luck to you and the Wales team. Cltjames (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames. Learning every policy/guideline is not easy, sometimes it takes a mistake of using them incorrectly to be pointed to it. Not sure what period @KJP1, is referring too, but you've only edited majorly since 2021, then did a big break, so not too long or much so far imo, so understandable. Although bigger edits may cause bigger concerns. I still learn every now and then!

I am not here to discourage, as this section header may do. Thank you for your work at List of rulers in Wales, and you seem fully open to learn and improve. If the reference to school exams indicates youth, then like I not too long ago during mine, this stuff takes a bit of time to get your head around alongside! Yes, reverts were probably the easy way, this is a live website, and not everyone has time nor interest to go through it all instantly.

It appears history is the topic with the most issues concerning your edits. Probably don't treat disputed/pseudo-history as fact or write it in a equal style to fact. Make sure you find the best history sources. Also be free to raise questions/ideas/advice at talks/project, if you have concerns or believe that your edits may need another eye. Make sure to also use draftspace/sandbox for testing if it helps.

TG is a more extreme case, their edits on other Celtic nations are basically other nation versions on what they did for Wales, and/or similar political topics. But TG edited excessively almost every day, and the issues kept piling up, repeated and even escalated. I maintained the action reluctantly, and hope they learn and return.

I don't encourage anyone to leave, happy you're hanging on, but it is clear there are some concerns here, so possibly be a bit more cautious going forward. Yes sometimes emotions get the better of us, but nothing always goes the way we want. Happy to offer help and advice. Happy editing and good luck with your exams! DankJae 23:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply @DankJae:, when I said school in the legendary rulers draft talk, I did mean university, just don't want to go into details, I am older, but feel like returning to study higher education could better my career, and edits at that : p

With this whole Wales history topic, it was a bit of a snowball turning into an avalanche, as every Welsh medieval article was written, but the majority didn't have references and in some cases e.g. Madoc, the article is practically unreadable and needs to be simplified with bullet points as such. So, I started off by deciding to fill in the gaps and take it from there. For now, I am too busy to continue more, maybe closer towards the New Year I will try to find some more sources and finish the draft for the List of legendary rulers of Wales. Sometimes I just wish there was more I could do, I've always read Wikipedia from remembering first reading through articles from around 2006. It's a shame I backed off of editing 10 years ago when these articles were being finished, but I knew something like this would happen to me because of creative differences. Anyway, all the best DankJae, and talk in the near future. P.s. as for Titus, I'm sure he should be reinstated to Wikiproject Wales one day, although I don't know the full story, but he has over ten thousand edits and a lot of them seem to be well written and are kept on the articles he has contributed to or started, so I'm sure its just the case of a huge misunderstanding, as now we know he's building experience to returning to the fold one day as a more experienced contributor. Cltjames (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There was no misunderstanding. TG knew exactly what he was doing, as did the editors who scrutinised his work. KJP1 (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, I was referring to university too. Never seen someone call university "school" so got the wrong impression sorry. I knew a few older students when I attended. Good luck with them!

There is a deeper story with TG of course if many eventually lacked confidence in their editing. Many one-sided articles, and very niche political topics made for example.

All the best too. DankJae 12:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames I did revert a change of Madoc's name. I don't see that as helping you. I should have looked at your edits more but didn't have the energy. I regret that now. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)