User talk:HarrySime

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet

March 2019

Before adding red links to list articles regarding notable people read this and make an article first: Wikipedia:Notability...Modernist (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO you need to stop edit warring to remove sourced information from the article just because you don’t like it. I will respond more fully on the talk page shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hi HarrySime! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Meters (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be 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. 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. - Daveout(talk) 18:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should make your case on the talk page and wait until a majority of users agree with the change. If you change the article again without achieving consensus first, I'll ask and admin to have a talk with your (you may be blocked from editing that page) - Daveout(talk) 19:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Daveout(talk) 20:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Roman Polanski) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dedan Kimathi

I'm going to refrain from using a templated warning, but you need to be very careful with accusations of vandalism, such as you made here. (I'm being explicit, diffs and all, for possible future reference.) My edit summary on the edit was quite clear, I thought, and so you may disagree but you may not call it "vandalism". Moreover, I think I have some pretty good reasons for removing that awful, heavily skewed, and unashamedly partisan content. That someone had the nerve in the first place to provide a quote from Ian Henderson (police officer), a colonial officer who seems to have cheerfully participated in the oppression of the people of Kenya before moving on to (alleged! but documented) torture in another British colony. So no, you can not have that content. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To reinforce what Drmies advised, you are using sources that were either involved in the events as opponents of Kimathi, or who appear to have sensationalized the accounts. Please find academic scholarship that is not nakedly partisan. The simple existence of a source of some kind doesn't make your edits permanent. Acroterion (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going with a templated warning. Stop with the accusations of vandalism. We've explained why your sources are problematic. Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Acroterion (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Acroterion (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are warned again about slow edit warring and personal attacks. Make your case on the talkpage, I'll start a discussion threead there for your participation. Edit summaries aren't enough. Acroterion (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've made no attempt to discuss this, and have characterized edits that disagreed with your preferred version as "vandalism," I will take this up at the appropriate noticeboard when time permits. This kind of slow-motion POV editing with inappropriate edit summaries that amount to personal attacks is disruptive - you've been around long enough to know better. Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Dedan Kimathi and Mau Mau Uprising) for a period of 3 months for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 17:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]